convert_timestamp

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 describes the conversion functionality and supported inputs but lacks explicit statements about side effects (likely none) or error behavior. Adequate for a read-like conversion tool.

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 concise with three sentences; the 'Menu ID' line is slightly extraneous but does not detract. 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?

The description lacks details about the output format or return value structure, referencing an external tool for completeness. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more self-contained.

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 single parameter 'input' has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description compensates by specifying supported formats (ISO 8601, RFC 2822), timezones, and millisecond/microsecond precision, adding significant meaning.

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 bidirectional conversion between Unix timestamps and human-readable dates, listing supported formats (ISO 8601, RFC 2822) and precision. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling time tools like time_date_calculator.

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 suggests using describe_tool for full guidance, implying more context exists, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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