time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the two behavioral modes (with city and without city), which is the key behavioral nuance. It does not mention edge cases or errors, but for a simple read-only time lookup, this is adequate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does and how the parameter affects behavior. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that.

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 schema already fully documents the 'city' parameter with enum values and descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by explaining that omitting the city returns the full list, which complements the default='all' in the 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 tool returns the current time for a specific city, using the specific verb '반환합니다' (returns) and resource '특정 도시의 현재 시간' (current time of specific city). It also explains the fallback behavior when no city is specified, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-weather.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the current time for a city. It also clarifies the behavior when no city is provided (returns full list). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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