IvedaAI: Time

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the response JSON includes 'status', 'truncated', and 'timedOut' flags, which signals potential response cut-offs. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail other response aspects.

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 two sentences, front-loading the response format note before the operation. It is concise, free of fluff, and every sentence contributes useful information (response flags + operation purpose).

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It only mentions status/truncated/timedOut flags, but does not describe the actual content of 'time configurations' that would be returned. This is a significant omission for a read-only lookup tool, leaving the expected response body unspecified.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions the operation endpoint but the schema's enum already lists 'GET /api/time'. Generic parameters like body, path, and query are not further clarified for this specific operation.

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 performs 'Time operations' and specifically identifies the 'GET /api/time' operation as 'Find time configurations'. This provides a specific verb (Find) and resource (time configurations), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling resource tools.

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: use this tool when you need to find time configurations. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to alternative tools. The context is clear from the resource name but not elaborated.

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