time_unix

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 explain how seconds vs milliseconds output is selected (no parameter appears to control it), what happens with timezone defaults, whether it is pure/read-only, or any error behavior, leaving real gaps for a conversion 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 with no filler; the operation and its output unit lead the description. Nothing wasteful is present.

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 spelled out, but the definition still omits the input format, timezone handling, and unit-selection behavior across two undocumented parameters with no annotations. For a conversion tool this is thinner than an agent needs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints that 'now' is an accepted datetime value, but the timezone parameter is never mentioned and accepted date formats are unspecified, forcing the agent to guess at both inputs.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Convert a date/time to unix epoch seconds/milliseconds') and names the output unit, which is concrete. However, it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings like time_convert, time_now, and time_format, and the 'seconds/milliseconds' phrasing leaves the actual output type ambiguous.

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 time_convert, time_now, or time_format, all of which plausibly overlap. The parenthetical "(or 'now')" even encroaches on time_now's territory without explaining the distinction, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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