ticktick_get_overview

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 useful context about authentication requirements for extended features, which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't describe response format, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 brief sentences with clear information hierarchy: primary purpose first, content details second, authentication note third. No wasted words, though the authentication sentence could be slightly more integrated with the main description.

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 simple nature (read-only, no parameters, has output schema), the description provides adequate context. It covers what data is returned and authentication requirements. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description doesn't need to explain response format.

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 0% description coverage and only one parameter (an empty object 'params'). The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate since the tool appears to require no specific input beyond authentication context. This earns a baseline 4 for zero 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: 'Get today's productivity overview' with specific components (task status, habit progress, focus statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_daily_summary' or 'ticktick_get_weekly_report' by focusing on today's overview, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 through 'today's' and mentions authentication requirements for extended features, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_daily_summary' or 'ticktick_get_completed_tasks'. The authentication note 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.