Timer List Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that elapse times are surfaced, but omits whether timers are listed system-wide vs. per-user, whether inactive timers appear, or any pagination/ordering behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded with zero filler. The 'Returns: List of timers with count' line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is not harmful.

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?

A simple, parameterless read tool with annotations and an output schema — little burden falls on the description, and what it claims is sufficient to call it correctly. Minor gaps (scope of listing, active vs. inactive) keep it below 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 and resource: lists systemd timers, plus the notable detail that next and last elapse times are included. It differentiates from unit_list_tool only implicitly (timers vs. generic units), so it stops short of the sibling-level precision a 5 requires.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer you call this when inspecting scheduled timers. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. unit_list_tool or when-not guidance, and no prerequisites noted.

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