ticktick_get_today_focus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), which is crucial for usage, and outlines what data is returned ('total focus time, pomodoro count, and progress toward daily goal'). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three brief sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on returned data and authentication. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (no input parameters, simple read operation) and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) plus an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, returned data, and authentication needs. However, it could slightly improve by mentioning the output format or any limitations (e.g., timezone considerations).

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 with one parameter (an empty object 'params'), so the schema provides minimal semantic information. The description compensates by implicitly indicating no required input parameters beyond authentication, as it focuses on today's data without mentioning filters or options. This adequately clarifies the parameter semantics given the simple 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and resources ('today's focus time statistics', 'total focus time, pomodoro count, and progress toward daily goal'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on today's focus stats rather than other time periods or task management functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like ticktick_get_focus_records or ticktick_get_daily_summary.

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 specifying 'today's' focus statistics and mentions authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication'), providing some guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use directives compared to alternatives (e.g., vs. ticktick_get_focus_records for historical data or ticktick_get_daily_summary for broader daily metrics). No clear exclusions or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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