chuk-mcp-time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and output structure (returns TimezoneDetailResponse with current info and transition schedule), but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance implications of the 'mode' parameter. It adequately describes what the tool does but misses behavioral nuances.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage note, and separate sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Useful for planning...' sentence is somewhat generic and could be more specific. Overall, it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with key information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks details on the response format (what fields TimezoneDetailResponse contains), error cases, or performance trade-offs. For a tool with no structured metadata, it's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'timezone' is an 'IANA timezone identifier' and 'mode' is an 'Accuracy mode for getting current time' with values 'fast' or 'accurate'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail the practical differences between 'fast' and 'accurate' modes.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information about a timezone including upcoming transitions') and resource ('timezone'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_timezones' (which lists) or 'convert_time' (which converts). It explicitly mentions what information is provided (metadata, offset, DST status, transitions).

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 provides some implied usage context ('Useful for planning and understanding timezone behavior'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_time_for_timezone' or 'get_local_time'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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