resolve_datetime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without writing anything', which clearly communicates that this is a non-destructive, read-only operation. This is a valuable behavioral trait that goes beyond what the schema or name alone would convey, though it could have added more detail about the exact output format.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action ('Show how a datetime string will be interpreted') and then gives a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a concrete use case. However, it leaves the exact nature of the output ('how it will be interpreted') somewhat ambiguous, so it is not fully complete but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 only a string parameter with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The description refers to 'a datetime string', which directly gives meaning to the 'value' parameter, clarifying that it expects a date-time representation. This adds essential semantic context beyond the bare 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('datetime string'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on interpretation rather than direct calendar or event operations. The phrase 'without writing anything' reinforces its read-only nature, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to confirm a zone before committing an event.' This gives clear context for usage, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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