parse_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details supported expression types and notes holiday support including the lunar calendar, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid or ambiguous expressions, nor clarify the exact output format or whether ranges return multiple values. The output schema exists but the description alone leaves these aspects unclear.

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 bilingual, doubling its length, but the content is well-organized with a clear list of supported expression types. Every sentence provides useful information, and the structure enhances readability. The duplication is a minor inefficiency but not excessive.

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 availability of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the main input categories and adds relevant details like lunar calendar support. It does not address edge cases or default timezone behavior in the description, but these are partly covered by schema defaults and the output schema, resulting in a minor gap.

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 descriptions for both `expression` and `timezone`. The description adds value by enumerating supported expression patterns and providing concrete examples (e.g., '昨天', '国庆节期间'), which goes beyond the schema's brief examples. This enriches the understanding of the `expression` parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: parsing fuzzy Chinese time expressions into a standard datetime format. It lists specific supported expression categories (relative time, time ranges, time of day, holidays, specific dates), making the functionality explicit. Although there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, the verb+resource combination is precise and 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?

The description provides concrete examples of supported expressions and expression categories, which strongly implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, though no siblings exist. The examples serve as effective usage guidance for a parser.

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