ticktick_get_habit_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds the authentication requirement ('Requires v2 API authentication') which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: purpose statement, statistics details, and authentication requirement. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 annotations cover safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), schema documents parameters well, and there's an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description provides adequate context. It covers purpose, statistics included, and authentication requirements. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling tool differentiation.

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 has good descriptions for all parameters (habit_id, from_date, to_date). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. With comprehensive schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but the schema carries the burden.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'statistics for a specific habit', with specific examples of what statistics are included (completion rate, streaks, historical data). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_habit' or 'ticktick_get_today_habits', but the focus on statistics is clear and non-tautological.

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 includes 'Requires v2 API authentication' which provides some usage context, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_habit' (which might return basic habit info) or 'ticktick_get_today_habits' (which might show today's habits). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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