get_current_datetime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the ability to format output and select a provider, and implies a read-only operation with 'Get'. However, it does not clarify timezone behavior, potential latency with the remote provider, or safety characteristics. This is a moderate level of transparency, sufficient for a simple getter but with notable omissions.

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, with the action verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds use cases and format details, all relevant and without fluff. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is simple, with all parameters fully described in the schema. The description explains the intended output (a formatted string, with default ISO) and provides sufficient context for use. Minor gaps like explicit timezone handling or exact return type are inferable from the schema and tool nature, making this adequately complete, though not perfect.

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 input schema descriptions are comprehensive: `format` describes the ISO default and token examples, and `provider` explains local/remote options. The tool description repeats key points (ISO default, tokens, provider selection) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Get the current date and time', which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional formatting and provider selection, making the tool's purpose entirely clear. Though there are no sibling tools to differentiate, the description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'timestamped files, logs, database migrations, and any time-sensitive development tasks', giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not state when not to use it, but since there are no alternative tools listed, the guidance is adequate, though slightly below the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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