get_current_datetime

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses return formats (ISO, human, ADR) and implies no side effects. However, it does not specify behavior like whether it uses system clock or supports timezone rules, leaving some ambiguity for a simple tool.

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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides usage context. No filler words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers inputs and output summaries. Could mention return shape (e.g., object with format keys) but not critical for this simple tool. Contextual completeness is high.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds 'ISO 8601, human-readable, and ADR-specific date formats' but largely repeats schema enum meanings. Minimal added value beyond schema, meets baseline.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'current date and time' with specific output formats (ISO 8601, human-readable, ADR). Context hints at sibling differentiation (timestamping ADRs, research documents) distinguishing it from analytical or file manipulation tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context for 'timestamping ADRs, research documents, and other architectural artifacts,' implying when to use. No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but no direct sibling datetime tool exists, so guidance is adequate.

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