Timer Status

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description explains return fields in detail, including edge cases like 'recovered' (server restart) and 'runaway' (forgotten timer), and notes that elapsed_ms is live. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, clear Args and Returns sections, and every detail earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (one optional param) and the inline output schema covering all return fields, the description is fully complete. Edge cases and field semantics are explained, leaving no gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a basic description. The description adds 'running timers' context to the parameter, clarifying that only active timers are shown, and reiterates the optional nature. This adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema.

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 'Check what's on the clock right now' with 'Read-only', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling timers (start, stop, cancel, etc.) by focusing on current status.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating it checks currently running timers and allows optional name filter. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons, but the context is clear for a simple status check.

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