timestamp_to_datetime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention timezone handling (e.g., UTC vs local), output format specifics, or any edge cases. For a conversion tool, this is a notable gap, as the result may vary depending on the timezone assumed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema. The description is adequate for basic understanding, but it lacks mention of timezone assumptions and output format specifics. Since an output schema exists, it may cover format, but the timezone question remains unresolved, leaving a minor gap.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter (timestamp, seconds since epoch) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Convert' and clearly states input (Unix timestamp) and output (human-readable datetime string). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool datetime_to_timestamp, which performs the reverse conversion.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a Unix timestamp needs conversion to a readable datetime. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list includes the reverse tool, providing context. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses a 5.

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