get_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses an important behavioral trait: the call appends a sample to the drift log, which is a side effect beyond a simple read. It does not go into failure modes or output format, but it covers the main behavioral surprise.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the operation and side effect, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what side effect it causes, and how often to call it. It does not explicitly connect to the sibling get_drift, but the core calling context is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents 'server' as the NTP server to query. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 is specific: 'Query an NTP server for current UTC time and this clock's offset, and append the sample to the drift log.' It names a clear action, resource, and side effect, and it implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_drift by describing a data-collection operation rather than a read operation, though it never explicitly names the sibling.

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 instruction 'Call it periodically to build drift history' gives clear context for when the tool should be used. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it compared to get_drift.

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