ticktick_get_project

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 minimal behavioral context beyond this, specifying that it includes tasks in the output, which is useful but not rich. It doesn't describe response format, error conditions, or authentication needs, though annotations cover safety.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details of a specific project') and adds a useful detail ('including its tasks') efficiently. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope (project with tasks), though it could better address usage context. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. It mentions 'a specific project' but doesn't explain the 'project_id' parameter's format, source, or constraints. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('details of a specific project including its tasks'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'ticktick_list_projects' (which lists projects) by specifying retrieval of a single project with tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ticktick_get_task' (which gets a single task), leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID from 'ticktick_list_projects'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'ticktick_get_task' or 'ticktick_list_tasks'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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