os

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action 'get' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose return format, timezone behavior, error conditions, or whether any side effects occur. Minimal extra context is provided.

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 extremely short, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks sentence structure and leaves ambiguity about what 'os' refers to. This is more like a fragment than a well-formed tool description.

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 one parameter, an enum, and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or any OS-specific behavior. It doesn't. The agent is left to infer what 'get_date_time' actually returns or how it behaves, making the tool insufficiently documented.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'operation' that has an enum description. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already fully documents the parameter. Thus the baseline 3 applies.

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 os time date' clearly indicates the tool retrieves the operating system's time and date. While the phrasing is awkward and doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, the tool name 'os' and the description make the purpose unambiguous enough for an agent.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools are all Dooray-related, so this OS tool is distinct, but the description fails to state any usage context.

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