ticktick_get_task

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the dual ID requirement, which isn't obvious from annotations alone. It doesn't contradict annotations (the 'Get' action aligns with readOnly), and provides practical constraint information.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical prerequisite information. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded, and structured for immediate comprehension.

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 retrieval purpose, rich annotations (covering safety/idempotency), and existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. It covers the key operational constraint (dual ID requirement) that isn't captured elsewhere. For a read-only get operation, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention error cases or relationship to other 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%, but the description compensates by explaining that both task_id and project_id are required. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's implied by parameter names (e.g., format of IDs, where to find them, or relationship between task and project). With one complex parameter object containing two required fields, the description adds basic clarity but leaves details to the schema.

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 ('a specific task by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from list/query tools like 'ticktick_list_tasks' by specifying retrieval of a single task. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get operations like 'ticktick_get_project' or 'ticktick_get_habit'.

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 by stating 'Requires both task ID and project ID,' which suggests prerequisites. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ticktick_list_tasks' for browsing or 'ticktick_get_completed_tasks' for historical data. No when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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