ticktick_get_productivity_score

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 behavioral context: it discloses that extended metrics require v2 API authentication (an access requirement) and mentions personalized recommendations (output behavior). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise: four brief sentences that each add distinct value (purpose, components, recommendations, authentication requirement). No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (no input parameters, annotations cover safety, output schema exists), the description provides adequate context: purpose, score components, recommendations, and authentication notes. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It could slightly improve by clarifying the scope (e.g., time period).

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 actual input fields). The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none to document. This exceeds the baseline expectation 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: 'Calculate your productivity score' with specific components (task completion, habit consistency, focus time). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on productivity scoring rather than task/project management operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other analytics tools like 'get_task_analytics' or 'get_weekly_report'.

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 'personalized recommendations' and 'Extended metrics require v2 API authentication,' suggesting when enhanced features are available. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other analytics tools (get_task_analytics, get_weekly_report) or mention prerequisites beyond authentication.

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