ticktick_get_daily_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data components included (tasks, habits, focus time) and mentions the 'v2 API' requirement, which are behavioral traits not captured in annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two supporting sentences that add specific details without waste. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope, data types, and requirements, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (a read-only summary with one parameter) and the presence of annotations (covering safety) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the data included and API requirements, but could be more explicit about output format or error handling, though the output schema mitigates this 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 description coverage is 0%, but the input schema's 'date' parameter has a description: 'Date to summarize (YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today).' The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or constraints. With one parameter well-documented in the schema, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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: 'Get detailed summary for a specific day' with specific components listed ('tasks completed, habits done, and focus time'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ticktick_get_completed_tasks' or 'ticktick_get_today_habits' by combining multiple data types into a daily summary, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'ticktick_get_overview' or 'ticktick_get_weekly_report'.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific day' and mentioning 'Requires v2 API for complete data,' which suggests prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_today_focus' or 'ticktick_get_weekly_report,' nor does it provide exclusions or detailed comparison with sibling tools.

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