get_time

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states the endpoint (/api/time), the return object (TimestampInfo), the timestamp field, and the ISO 8601 format with timezone example. For a read-only getter, this is adequate transparency, though it doesn't explicitly mention being non-destructive.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then the endpoint and return format with an example, and a use-case paragraph. No redundant or unnecessary text; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides complete context. It covers what the tool does, how it works (endpoint), exactly what it returns (TimestampInfo with timestamp field and format), and when to use it. This fully compensates for the lack of structured output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details because there are none, and the schema coverage is already 100% (mirroring the empty properties).

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 clear statement: 'Retrieve the current timestamp from the Busy Bar device's real-time clock.' This specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (timestamp/real-time clock), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_timezone. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides a 'Use case' section explaining this is for querying the device's clock as an authoritative time source for scheduling, logging, or coordinating with BUSY timers. This gives clear context, but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives; however, no sibling tool retrieves the current time, so the context is sufficient.

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