中国当前时间

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific output formats (ISO, local Chinese, day of week, timestamp) beyond what annotations provide. No behavioral quirks or contradictions.

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 concise sentence that covers all essential information: timezone, output formats, and purpose. No unnecessary words, and the information is 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly lists the return value formats (ISO, local Chinese, day of week, timestamp), which is sufficient for this simple tool. No required parameters, so the description is complete and meets all informational 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 100%, with the only parameter 'now' described as a placeholder not needing to be passed. The description adds no further information on parameters, which is acceptable since the schema already clarifies their purpose. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb (获取, 'obtain') and resource (当前时间, 'current time') with specificity about timezone (Asia/Shanghai) and output formats (ISO, local Chinese, day of week, timestamp). It fully captures the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings, none of which are time-related.

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 does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. While the sibling list contains no time tools, the description could be improved by adding guidance, such as noting that this is for China time only.

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