cyberchef_timestamp_identify

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait beyond the read-only annotations: results are always a ranked list because a single 64-bit integer can validly represent multiple formats. It also enumerates the format coverage, giving the agent realistic expectations about scope and ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence, provides format scope in the second, and explains a non-obvious output guarantee in the third. Every sentence contributes useful information without fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, it explains the ranked-list output and why that design is necessary, which is valuable. It does not fully describe the exact shape of each ranked result or the role of the plausible_from/plausible_to window, but the schema covers those parameters and the overall behavior is sufficiently clear.

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%, and the schema already documents all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating that it accepts a decimal, hex, or v1 UUID, which duplicates the schema's 'value' description.

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 uses a specific verb ('rank') and identifies the resource ('every format it could plausibly be'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from CyberChef's date operations by positioning itself as the prerequisite step, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: before CyberChef's date operations, which require knowing the timestamp format in advance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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