get_time_utc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects, or any rate limits. The description is accurate but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output format without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys all necessary information in minimal text.

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 (no parameters, simple time retrieval) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is complete enough for basic use. It specifies the exact format, which is crucial. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that it returns a string or any potential errors, but for this simple tool, it is largely adequate.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as per the rules.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('current UTC time'), including the exact format ('YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which involve entity manipulation, file inspection, or zone operations, by being the only time-retrieval tool.

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 context (when you need the current UTC time in a specific format), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling tools are unrelated (e.g., 'add_observations', 'create_entities'), the distinction is clear by purpose, but no explicit guidance on alternatives is provided.

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