relative_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the relative time from now', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like input format (e.g., ISO 8601), error handling, or output structure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 concise with a single sentence ('Get the relative time from now.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'relative time' means in practice, how the 'time' parameter should be formatted, or what the output looks like (e.g., a string like '2 hours ago'). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('time') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about its meaning or format. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it relates to 'time', failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the parameter's semantics largely undefined.

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 the relative time from now' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relative time'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'relative time' means compared to siblings like 'convert_time' or 'get_timestamp'. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from these alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'convert_time' or 'get_timestamp'. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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