format_timestamp

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 mentions conversion behavior but lacks critical details: whether the tool handles timezone conversion, what happens with invalid timestamps, if there are formatting constraints, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this simple conversion tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the 'readable date' output takes, doesn't mention timezone handling, and provides no error behavior context. Given the lack of structured fields, the description should do more to compensate.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions timestamp conversion generally but provides no additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or examples.

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: converting Unix timestamps to human-readable dates. It specifies both the input (Unix timestamp) and output (readable date), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_time' or 'days_between_dates' which also handle dates/times.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_current_time' (which might provide current time formatting) or 'days_between_dates' (which handles date calculations), leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts.

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