sys_time

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and 'read-only' does communicate that the operation has no side effects. It does not mention return format or timezone handling, but those are minor gaps for a zero-parameter system time query.

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 extremely concise at three words and contains no filler; the read-only qualifier is front-loaded and useful. Adding a verb would improve actionability, but the current size is appropriate for a tool this simple.

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 read-only query, the description is mostly sufficient for tool selection and invocation. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not specify what the returned system time looks like, such as format or timezone, leaving some 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('System time') and explicitly marks it as read-only, distinguishing it from state-changing sys_* tools. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'show,' so the action is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use sys_time versus sibling tools like sys_info, sys_version, or sys_health. The read-only label hints that it is a safe query, but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives are provided.

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