Time-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves current date and time, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but fails to mention potential behavioral traits such as timezone handling, latency, or error conditions. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, clear sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose ('Get the current date and time'). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like return format or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on what to expect from the tool's execution.

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 does not mention parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage, fully documenting the optional 'format' parameter with its enum values and default. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current date and time'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from potential siblings (though none exist) by focusing on retrieving temporal data rather than manipulating or analyzing it.

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 implies usage for obtaining current temporal information, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system clock queries or other time-related tools). Since there are no sibling tools, this omission is less critical, but it still lacks proactive usage context.

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