convert_timestamp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavior: epoch units are detected by digit count, 'now' is accepted, and output includes UTC, weekday, and relative time, which goes beyond a generic 'convert timestamp' claim. However, it does not mention handling of malformed input, timezone interpretation of the source timestamp, or the exact response shape/error behavior.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the action and then lists supported formats in a clear, scannable series. No words are wasted and every clause adds useful information.

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?

The tool is simple (one required string parameter) and the description covers accepted inputs and output content, so it is largely usable. The lack of an output schema means the description should ideally state the returned structure (e.g., JSON/text) and failure behavior; these are absent, leaving a small but real completeness gap.

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 only defines 'value' as a string with no description, and coverage is 0%, so this description is the only documentation for the parameter. It compensates well by enumerating accepted input families (Unix epoch in s/ms/µs, FILETIME, ISO 8601, RFC 2822, 'now') and even explains detection logic. It could be slightly more precise about exact string formatting, but the added meaning is strong.

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 opens with a specific action ('Turn any timestamp') and names the exact resource and outputs (Unix epoch, FILETIME, ISO 8601, RFC 2822, 'now'), which clearly separates it from the forensic siblings like identify_hash or decode_jwt. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 phrase 'an investigation needs' implies a digital-forensics context and positions the tool for timestamp-format conversion, but it never states when to choose it over an alternative or mentions any exclusions. There are no sibling timestamp tools, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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