file_retime

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. It doesn't explain output behavior, whether the operation is a constant offset, or limitations of the adjustment. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description provides no additional context.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. However, it is so brief that it omits essential parameter and usage details, so it is not optimally sized for this complex tool.

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?

A five-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions needs a much more detailed description to be usable. The one-sentence description leaves critical questions about adjustment specifics and parameter behavior unanswered, making it nearly impossible for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter names or their meanings. The agent would have to guess at the semantics of adjust_sec, strict_adjust_sec, and replacements.

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 and resource ('Adjust packet timestamps'), clearly indicating a timestamp modification operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_merge or file_slice, which perform different operations.

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, such as file_slice or file_tshark_export. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and description.

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