time_format

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a side-effect-free transformation, nor does it explain the 'now' default for datetime, timezone handling, or whether the input must be an ISO string – all relevant for a formatting tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence; the action and mechanism come first and the strftime example earns its place by showing the expected token syntax. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema description coverage the accepted input formats for datetime and timezone, and the behavior of the defaults, are unspecified. For a three-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves material gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description explains the format parameter via the strftime pattern and example, but says nothing about the datetime input format (default 'now') or the timezone parameter, leaving two of three parameters undefined in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (format) plus resource (date/time) and the exact mechanism (strftime pattern) with a concrete example. This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like time_convert, time_add, or time_now, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as time_convert, time_now, or time_unix. The example shows how to invoke it but gives no context or exclusion criteria for selecting it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.