get_server_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly identifies this as a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects, and specifies the output unit (Unix epoch milliseconds). The only minor gap is that the exact response shape (e.g., raw number vs. wrapped object) is not disclosed, but for such a simple getter this is sufficient.

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 with no filler. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical context that justifies the tool's existence. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and why it is useful. No significant detail an agent would need to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the returned timestamp format, though there is no parameter semantics to elaborate on. Nothing is missing here.

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 specific action (get), the resource (current time on the Tdarr Server), and the exact format (Unix epoch in milliseconds). This is unambiguous and distinct from any sibling tool, none of which appear to provide time information.

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 gives a concrete use case: interpreting epoch timestamps in file and job records. Since no alternative tool for retrieving server time exists, explicit when-not guidance is unnecessary. The stated purpose effectively tells an agent when to invoke this tool.

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