tool_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists outputs, which hints at return data, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, or what happens when the timezone parameter is omitted. The '[viewer]' label suggests non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicit or detailed.

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 very short and follows a clear section structure (Parameters/Outputs). However, it wastes space by duplicating schema content without adding valuable context. It is concise but not informative, and the lack of a narrative description is a structural weakness.

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, but the description is still incomplete for selection and invocation. It does not explain the tool's core purpose, when to use it, or how outputs are formatted. The misleading parameter/output split further reduces completeness. An agent cannot confidently decide when to use this tool or how to call it correctly.

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 description claims only 'timezone' is a parameter and lists the other four schema properties as outputs, but the input schema includes all five as properties. This directly contradicts the schema and misleads the agent about what parameters are accepted. Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds confusion rather than meaning, so the baseline of 3 is severely reduced.

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 starts with '[viewer] Time' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lists parameters and outputs but never explicitly states what the tool does (e.g., 'get current time in a timezone'). The verb 'viewer' implies a read operation but does not specify the action or resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context, use cases, or exclusions. It lacks any sentence explaining when a user should invoke this tool.

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