unix_timestamp

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 clearly describes what the tool does (returns current Unix timestamp) and details the return structure with specific fields and types. However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral aspects like whether the timestamp is UTC-based, if there are any rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions (though likely none for a timestamp tool).

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Returns' section with well-formatted documentation of the output structure. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, documents the return format in detail, and the output schema handles the structured response documentation. For a timestamp retrieval tool, this provides all necessary context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description explicitly states 'Return the current Unix timestamp' which reinforces that no inputs are needed, adding clarity beyond the empty schema. This earns a point above baseline for making the parameterless nature explicit in natural language.

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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Unix timestamp'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'current_date' or 'formatted_datetime' by focusing specifically on Unix timestamp format rather than date/time components or formatted strings.

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 when to use this tool (when you need the Unix timestamp specifically), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling tools include various date/time components and formatted outputs, the context suggests this is for Unix epoch seconds, but explicit guidance about alternatives is missing.

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