parse_timestamp

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 mentions parsing into 'detailed date/time components' but does not specify what those components are, whether there are defaults or errors for invalid inputs, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic parsing action.

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 key information (parsing action and input types) without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple parsing tool and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed date/time components' means in the output, which is critical for a parsing tool. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more detail on behavior and results is needed to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters ('input' and 'timezone') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, but the schema is comprehensive enough to justify a baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('parse') and resource ('Unix timestamp or ISO 8601 string'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on parsing rather than calculation, conversion, or information retrieval. It explicitly mentions the output format ('detailed date/time components'), which helps differentiate from tools like 'convert_timezone' or 'get_current_time'.

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 specifying the input types (Unix timestamp or ISO 8601 string) and output (detailed components), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert_calendar' or 'calculate_time'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about its specific context compared to sibling tools.

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