ticktick_get_today_habits

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by specifying 'Shows which habits are completed and which need attention' (behavioral output detail) and 'Requires v2 API authentication' (auth requirement not in annotations). It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only, and no rate limits or side effects are mentioned, but the added context is helpful.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies output behavior, and the third specifies auth requirements. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 (1 parameter, simple read operation), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is fairly complete. It adds purpose, output detail, and auth info. However, it could slightly improve by explicitly differentiating from siblings or mentioning any limitations (e.g., time zone 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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (no details in schema). The description doesn't mention any parameters, but since there's only 1 parameter (likely a placeholder or minimal input), the baseline is high. It compensates by implying the tool fetches all habits for today without filtering, so no parameter details are needed, making it adequate for this simple case.

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 status for all habits' specifies the verb (get) and resource (today's habit status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_habit' (single habit) and 'ticktick_list_habits' (list all habits without today's status), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'ticktick_get_habit_stats' which might overlap, keeping it at 4.

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 status' and 'all habits', suggesting it's for daily habit tracking. It mentions 'Requires v2 API authentication' as a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_habit' or 'ticktick_list_habits', nor does it provide exclusions or detailed scenarios.

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