get-current-date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is fixed to Shanghai timezone (UTC+8) and returns a string in yyyy-MM-dd format. It could additionally state that it reflects the current server/system clock, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 two compact sentences with no fluff. The core action (get current date) and key constraints (timezone, format) are front-loaded, followed by the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, timezone, and intended usage context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already documents this with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb (获取/获取当前日期) and resource (current date), and adds precise scope: Shanghai timezone (Asia/Shanghai, UTC+8) and exact return format (yyyy-MM-dd). It is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on train stations and tickets, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explicitly states the primary use case: resolving relative date expressions from users (e.g., 'tomorrow', 'next Wednesday') to provide accurate date input. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no similar sibling tool exists, so this is sufficient guidance for when to use it.

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