calculate_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 mentions the three modes but doesn't explain what each mode does in detail (e.g., how Lunar mode works, what anchor mode calculates relative to festivals), nor does it cover error handling, performance, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 10 parameters and complex functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (10 parameters, multiple modes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the behavioral nuances of each mode, how parameters interact across modes (e.g., 'base_date' is required for some but not all), or what the tool returns. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance for proper invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the modes (Gregorian, Lunar, anchor) and festival usage, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Add or subtract time from a date.' It specifies the action (add/subtract) and resource (time from a date). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'date_diff' (which calculates differences) or 'convert_calendar' (which converts between calendars), though the mention of modes provides some distinction.

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 by listing supported modes (Gregorian, Lunar, anchor), which suggests when to use this tool for different calendar systems. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'date_diff' for differences or 'convert_calendar' for conversions, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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