timers_get_current

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify what 'current/active' means operationally (e.g., is it the most recently started timer, a system-wide active timer, or something else?), nor does it describe the return format or potential errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient phrase ('Get the current/active timer') that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, return values, or differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely returns timer state information, more context on what 'current/active' entails would be helpful, but it's not entirely incomplete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 'Get the current/active timer' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current/active timer'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'timers_get' or 'timers_get_all' beyond the 'current/active' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 alternatives like 'timers_get' (which might retrieve multiple timers) or 'timers_get_all'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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