Get Current Time

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses the default timezone (UTC) and that it accepts an optional timezone, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose the return format (e.g., ISO string, human-readable), which could be important for agents integrating the output. This is a minor gap.

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, two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the optional parameter. No wasted words, well-structured.

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 that this is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions the default timezone and an example. The only missing piece is the return format, which could be inferred but would be helpful to state. Still, for a time tool, this is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the timezone parameter, including its type and default. The description adds a concrete example ('Asia/Kolkata') and reaffirms the default, which is slightly redundant but helpful. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: getting current date and time, optionally in a specific IANA timezone. This is a clear verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate and get_weather. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling that might also provide time-related data, though none of the listed siblings do.

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 gives a clear sense of when to use the tool: whenever current date/time is needed. It mentions the timezone parameter and default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling list, this tool is the only one providing time, so the context is clear.

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