system_clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: bool fields are normalized via `formatting.coerce_ros_bool` to `bool | None`, and a device with no `/system/clock` menu returns an empty dict rather than an error. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate or concurrency notes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 resource path and field list are front-loaded, and each sentence carries diagnostic or behavioral content. It is parenthetical-heavy and denser than necessary, but there is little outright filler.

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 single-row read with an output schema, this covers what the tool is, the fields it exposes, the diagnostic context, and the empty-dict edge case. Missing auth/permission context is the only notable gap given the absence of annotations.

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 0% and the sole parameter (`device_name`) is never mentioned in the description, so the documentation does not compensate for the gap. The parameter is essentially self-explanatory by name, which prevents a lower score, but nothing beyond the schema is added.

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 names the exact resource (`/system/clock`) and enumerates the readable fields (time, date, time-zone-name, gmt-offset, dst-active), so an agent knows precisely what it returns. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'Read/Get', and the distinguishing information is mostly implicit in the field list, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete diagnostic trigger: check this alongside `ntp_client`'s `status`/`synced-server` when clock drift is breaking certificate validation, log timestamps, or scheduler timing. That is a clear when-to-use with a named complementary sibling, though it offers no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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