ticktick_get_habit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by specifying the authentication requirement ('Requires v2 API authentication'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format details, limiting its transparency beyond the 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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and authentication needs, which are essential for usage. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, slightly reducing completeness for an agent needing to choose between similar tools.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'habit_id' represents or its format. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details but also doesn't worsen the situation.

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 details of a specific habit including its statistics.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('habit'), and scope ('details' and 'statistics'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_habit_stats' or 'ticktick_get_today_habits', which might cause confusion about when to use each.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'Requires v2 API authentication,' which is a prerequisite but not a contextual guideline. It doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_list_habits' for listing habits or 'ticktick_get_habit_stats' for statistics, leaving the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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