getNow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get the current timestamp' implies a read-only operation that returns time data, but it doesn't specify format (e.g., ISO 8601, Unix timestamp), timezone behavior, or whether it's real-time vs. cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 'Get the current timestamp' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by clearly conveying what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the timestamp is returned in, which is critical context for a time-related tool. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral detail to be truly complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 'Get the current timestamp' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current timestamp', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getDateByTimestamp' which requires input parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cal' or 'batchGetDateByTimestamp', keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getDateByTimestamp' or 'batchGetDateByTimestamp'. It doesn't mention that this tool is for getting the current time without input, while siblings require timestamps as input. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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