clock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool reads only the WASI real-time clock, performs no filesystem/network/environment access, and is fuel-metered with execution reported via _meta.execution. This is excellent transparency.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return value, then adds essential behavioral constraints. Every clause adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (UTC ISO-8601 with milliseconds and Unix epoch), its environment restrictions, and execution metering. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on return values and runtime behavior rather than parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource: current UTC time and Unix epoch milliseconds. It is unambiguous and naturally distinct from sibling tools echo and get-policy.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when current UTC time or epoch milliseconds are needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context is straightforward and the siblings are unrelated to time retrieval.

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