epoch_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds key context: it handles multiple epoch precisions, outputs in UTC, and suppresses implausible readings. These are non-obvious behavioral details that help an agent understand the tool's behavior and potential edge cases, going well beyond a mere 'convert' statement.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary function and adds a parenthetical behavioral note. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essentials: what it does, the input's meaning, and a key behavioral nuance. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. The only minor gap is ambiguity about how it auto-detects units or handles errors, but this is partially addressed by 'implausible readings suppressed'.

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 input schema only provides a string parameter 'n' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates effectively by explaining that 'n' is an epoch value in seconds, millis, micros, or nanos, and that implausible readings are suppressed. This gives meaning to the parameter and hints at how it should be formatted, though no specific examples or syntax are given.

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 converts epoch times in various units (seconds/millis/micros/nanos) to ISO 8601 UTC. The verb 'to' indicates a conversion action, and the resource (epoch time) is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like human_duration, which deal with durations rather than timestamps.

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 implies usage: when you have an epoch value and need ISO 8601 UTC, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, mention exclusions, or provide prerequisites. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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