Get Time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'return,' implying a read-only operation, and adds the important nuance of 'model time' rather than wall-clock time. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or any other behavioral traits beyond the immediate action.

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, front-loaded sentence in Russian that accurately describes the tool without any fluff. It is concise and to the point, earning its place with zero waste.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema (not shown but present), the description is nearly complete. It conveys the core behavior. It lacks any mention of when to use it or caveats about the time format, but the output schema likely covers return details. Minor 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that the returned value is the project's model time, which is not conveyed by the empty 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the current model time of the project.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like set_calc_time or get_signal, which are about signals or setting time. An agent can immediately understand 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 usage context is implied: retrieve the current model time. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but given the simplicity and lack of competing getters for time, the absence of explicit guidance is acceptable. It is not misleading.

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