Show the current time notification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful transparency by stating that the tool is offline ('Does not use weather or network services'), which sets expectations. However, it does not describe the exact behavior—e.g., whether a persistent or transient notification is shown, or any side effects—which is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. The key information—what it shows and what it does not depend on—is front-loaded and efficiently delivered. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and a straightforward purpose, this description is largely complete. It states the action, the resource, and a relevant limitation. It does not mention return values or side effects, but given the simplicity, these omissions are minor and do not impede a correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to explain about parameter formats or meanings. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters, and no additional description is needed beyond the absence of 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('Omarchy's local current time and date notification'). It distinguishes itself from weather or network-based notifications with the explicit 'Does not use weather or network services.' This is precise and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 usage (when you need to display the local time/date notification) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative notification methods or the sibling notification_send tool. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the guidance to inference.

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