get-current-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 mentions the tool returns '当前日期、时间，以及常用的相对日期' (current date, time, and commonly used relative dates), which gives some output context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. The second clause adds useful context about relative date calculation. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core functionality from additional features).

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at output content, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or examples. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, especially for behavioral aspects.

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 description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for both parameters ('timezone' and 'format'), including defaults. The description's mention of '相对日期计算' (relative date calculation) might relate to parameters but doesn't clarify how. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取当前日期和时间信息' (get current date and time information). It specifies the verb ('获取') and resource ('当前日期和时间信息'), and mentions additional functionality ('支持相对日期计算' - supports relative date calculation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all train-related, making the distinction obvious but not stated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other time/date tools (though none exist among the siblings). The phrase '支持相对日期计算' (supports relative date calculation) hints at a use case but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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