horizon_torn_getUserTimestamp

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states it gets server time, with no mention of safety properties (e.g., read-only, idempotent), potential caching effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence of 4 words, which is concise but under-specified. While there is no unnecessary fluff, the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It could be structured better to convey purpose and usage.

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 (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. However, with many sibling timestamp tools, the lack of context distinguishing this tool (e.g., tied to a user) makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably select it.

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 100%, with each of the 3 parameters (key, comment, timestamp) already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get current server time', which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling timestamp tools (e.g., getTornTimestamp, getCompanyTimestamp), which also likely retrieve server time. The user context implied by the name is not explained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many timestamp sibling tools, yet the description offers no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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