Get Current Datetime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying RFC 3339 format and the Garoon scope. It does not contradict annotations and no side-effect disclosure is needed for a read-only clock tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant words. Every element earns its place.

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?

With one optional parameter, a full schema description, output schema, and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the default timezone behavior when the parameter is omitted, but this is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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 timezone parameter is fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as default timezone behavior when omitted, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'current datetime' and specifies output format 'RFC 3339 format' and scope 'in Garoon'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which concern current time.

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 establishes clear context: use when you need the current datetime in RFC3339 from Garoon. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool provides this capability, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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