ticktick_list_habits

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 context about authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication') that isn't captured in annotations, which is crucial for the agent to understand prerequisites. No behavioral contradictions 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides critical authentication context. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded, and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 (list operation with no meaningful parameters), rich annotations covering safety/idempotency, and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and critical authentication requirement. The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 (empty properties object). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, but since there are effectively 0 meaningful parameters (the single parameter appears to be a wrapper with no actual fields), this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, and the description doesn't detract from that.

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 'List all habits' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('habits'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_get_habit' (single habit) and 'ticktick_get_today_habits' (today-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly mention scope differences from 'ticktick_get_habit_stats' which prevents a perfect score.

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 implicit usage context through the authentication requirement ('Requires v2 API authentication'), suggesting when authentication is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ticktick_get_today_habits' or 'ticktick_get_habit', and doesn't mention any prerequisites beyond authentication.

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