Utility MCP Server

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it converts timestamps, has a default timezone ('Asia/Shanghai'), specifies the return format ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS 时区'), and mentions error conditions ('Raises: ValueError'). This adds valuable context beyond the input schema, though it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and error handling, providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional explanations.

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% schema description coverage. It explains that 'timestamp' is a Unix timestamp in seconds and 'timezone' is a target timezone name with a default of '中国标准时间' (mapped to 'Asia/Shanghai' in the schema). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantics for both parameters.

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 specific verbs ('将Unix时间戳转换为指定时区的可读时间格式') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_current_time' and 'get_timestamp' by focusing on conversion rather than retrieval. It explicitly mentions the resource (Unix timestamp) and transformation (to readable time format).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (converting Unix timestamps to readable time in a specific timezone) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for timestamp formatting needs, though lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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