MCP Server Demo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior in returning dates based on input, but lacks details such as output format (e.g., date string structure), timezone handling, error conditions (e.g., invalid input), or performance aspects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core functionality in a single sentence. It efficiently covers key use cases without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it more clearly (e.g., separating conditions), but overall, it's well-sized and avoids waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (handling both absolute and relative dates) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., format of the date string), error handling, or any constraints (e.g., supported date ranges). This makes it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'date' documented as accepting dates like '2025-05-29' or relative units. The description adds value by clarifying that if no date is provided, it returns the current date, and it lists examples of relative units. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the current date or calculate relative dates based on user input. It specifies the verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the resource '日期' (date), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_current_weather', which might be relevant in some contexts.

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?

The description implies usage by stating it handles cases where users provide no date or relative units like '前天' (day before yesterday), '昨天' (yesterday), or '明天' (tomorrow). However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if 'get_current_weather' might also provide date-related info) or mention any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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