get_clock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. The word 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose output format, error behavior, permission requirements, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It includes the essential purpose and a helpful CLI reference, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only command, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the device parameter semantics or any prerequisites/caveats. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the overall guidance is thin for an agent needing to select and invoke this tool reliably among many siblings.

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 has zero description coverage for the device parameter, and the description also fails to explain what format the device should take (hostname, IP, etc.). The parameter name 'device' is somewhat self-explanatory in a network device context, but the lack of any semantic detail leaves room for ambiguity.

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 function: 'Show the device's current time' with a specific verb and resource, and it includes the underlying CLI command ('show clock'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_interfaces or get_version.

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 the tool is for retrieving the device clock, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like run_show_command or other get_* tools. There are no stated exclusions or preference conditions.

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