Time-Zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns errors for invalid timezones, or provides time formatting details. It mentions the timezone parameter but doesn't describe the return format or any behavioral constraints.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple time retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without preamble.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the time is returned in, how timezone validation works, whether there are default behaviors when no timezone is specified, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects of this time retrieval operation.

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 description mentions '指定时区' (specified timezone), which corresponds to the single 'timezone' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is undocumented in the structured schema. The description adds basic semantic context about what the parameter represents but doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., IANA timezone names, UTC offsets) or provide examples.

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 '获取指定时区的当前时间' clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the current time for a specified timezone. It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('当前时间' - current time), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'convert_time', which likely converts between timezones rather than getting current time.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'convert_time' or explain the relationship between them. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for using this specific time retrieval function.

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