ticktick_get_focus_settings

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 by specifying authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication') and detailing what information is returned ('Shows work duration, break times, and daily goals'). This enhances behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 and well-structured: three short sentences that each add value. The first states the purpose, the second details the output, and the third specifies authentication requirements. There is no wasted language, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 low complexity (no parameters, read-only operation), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output details, and authentication. However, it could briefly mention the output schema's role to fully guide the agent, but this is a minor 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the parameter is an empty object (no fields). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none to document. Given 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior rather than non-existent parameters.

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 with 'Get current Pomodoro/focus settings' and specifies what information it retrieves ('Shows work duration, break times, and daily goals'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_update_focus_settings' by being a read operation, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'Requires v2 API authentication', which indicates a prerequisite. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_today_focus' or 'ticktick_update_focus_settings', nor does it state when not to use it. The authentication requirement is helpful but not comprehensive usage guidance.

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