ticktick_get_focus_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), which isn't covered by the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the added context is helpful for agent decision-making.

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 three short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains filtering, and the third specifies authentication requirements. This structure is efficient and easy for an agent to parse.

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 that the tool has annotations covering safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and the description adds key context like authentication and filtering, it's mostly complete. However, the 0% schema description coverage for parameters leaves some gaps in understanding input details, slightly reducing completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions filtering by 'date range and focus type (pomodoro/stopwatch)', which maps to the 'from_date', 'to_date', and 'focus_type' parameters, providing some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, as it omits details like parameter formats or optionality.

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 as 'Get focus session history' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('focus session history'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'ticktick_get_today_focus' or 'ticktick_get_focus_settings'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond the general domain of focus records.

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 by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by date range and focus type') and authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_today_focus' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is contextual but not comprehensive.

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