cls_convert_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it performs bidirectional conversion, returns both millisecond and second timestamps, supports multiple time formats, and has a default timezone. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-structured with clear sections (功能, 参数说明, 使用示例, 返回格式) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some of the usage examples into the functional description rather than having a separate section.

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 complexity (bidirectional conversion with multiple parameter formats) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, parameter details, practical examples, and what to expect in the return values, making it fully self-contained despite the lack of annotations and schema descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains that timestamp and human_readable are mutually exclusive parameters, documents the exact formats supported for human_readable (absolute time, relative time, combinations, offsets), and clarifies the purpose of the timezone parameter with its default value.

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 as a time and timestamp conversion utility for CLS tools, specifying it converts between human-readable time and Unix timestamps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its role in preparing parameters for tools like cls_search_log and cls_query_metric, which none of the other tools do.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before calling CLS tools that require timestamp parameters') and includes practical examples showing how to use it for specific scenarios like querying yesterday's data or recent time ranges. It also mentions which sibling tools benefit from its output (cls_search_log for milliseconds, cls_query_metric for seconds).

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