impact_clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool requires an explicit now timestamp and never assumes current time, and that it measures from impact start rather than ticket creation. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects or error conditions, but for a calculation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then adds the key behavioral constraint (time basis and explicit now requirement). Each sentence contributes necessary information, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description offers the essential purpose and a critical behavioral constraint, but it does not describe the return format, potential error cases, or how severity/service influence the result. It gives enough to understand the intent but lacks detail for full autonomous use.

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 50%, covering 'now' and 'impact_start' but leaving 'service' and 'severity' undocumented. The description reinforces the meaning of impact_start and now but does not explain the roles of service and severity in determining escalation hops. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving those parameters ambiguous.

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 core function: determining which escalation hop is active and overdue given impact start and a specified now. It also distinguishes time measurement from ticket creation, which is a specific behavioral nuance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'escalation_path' or 'playbook', so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions a constraint (explicit now timestamp) but does not explain when this tool is appropriate or when another might be better. There is no statement of alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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