unix_timestamp

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 main behavior: converting to UTC datetime and retrieving current time. However, it omits edge cases (e.g., invalid timestamps, range limits) and uses 'human-readable' without specifying the exact format, which the output schema may clarify but is not disclosed here.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and covers both modes without repetition or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized 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 simple one-parameter utility with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers both input modes and specifies UTC. Minor omissions like error handling and exact output format are mitigated by the presence of an output schema, and sibling tools pose no ambiguity.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds essential meaning: 'seconds since epoch' defines the timestamp unit, and 'or get the current time' explains the behavior when timestamp is omitted/null. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail for the single parameter.

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 function with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('Unix timestamp'), and also covers the alternate mode of getting current time. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like format_json and generate_uuid, which are unrelated utilities.

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 (for timestamp conversion or current time) and is narrowly scoped, making the context clear. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that no further guidance is needed.

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