datetime_format

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 states only the core action and does not mention error behavior for invalid formats or dates, timezone assumptions, or that the operation is a pure transformation with no side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple utility and immediately communicates the action.

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?

Although an output schema exists and need not be explained, the description is incomplete for a tool with four required parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations. It omits usage context, parameter meanings, and any behavioral notes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 0% across four required parameters. The description only hints at the 'format' parameter via 'strftime format specifier' and says nothing about how year, month, and day are used (e.g., ranges, validation). This leaves three of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('a date to a string'), and mentions the strftime specifier, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling datetime_parse. No sibling is named directly, so it falls just short of the top 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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions. The phrase 'using a strftime format specifier' hints at the format parameter but does not tell an agent when this tool is preferable to other datetime sibling tools.

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