get_current_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches current time with customizable formatting, but doesn't cover aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid timezone), or what the output looks like (e.g., string format). This is a significant gap 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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (simple time-fetching with two optional parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and return values, which are important for agent invocation. This results in a score of 3, indicating clear but manageable gaps.

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 both parameters ('timezone' and 'format') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating the tool allows customizable formatting, which is already implied by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Obtener la fecha y hora actual con formato personalizable' (Get the current date and time with customizable format). It specifies the verb (obtener/get) and resource (fecha y hora actual/current date and time), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'format_timestamp' or 'days_between_dates', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'format_timestamp' (which might handle timestamp formatting without fetching current time) or 'get_calendar_month' (which provides calendar data), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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