convert_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 effectively describes the core functionality (timezone conversion) and output format (converted time with day of week), though it lacks details on error handling, input validation, or performance characteristics like rate limits. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence is essential, providing format examples and clarifying output details without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers input formats and output details, though it could benefit from mentioning error cases or edge behaviors. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for extensive output explanation in the description.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'time_str' with specific format examples, 'from_tz' as source IANA timezone with examples, and 'to_tz' as target IANA timezone. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Convert time between timezones') and resource (time), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'days_in_month' or 'get_datetime' which handle different time-related operations. It provides a verb+resource+scope combination that is precise and unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_datetime' or 'relative_time'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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