ticktick_list_projects

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 value by specifying the return format ('project details including ID, name, color, and task count'), which isn't covered by annotations, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loading the core action ('List all projects/lists') and following with return details. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 (a simple list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource scope and return fields, though it could benefit from mentioning the optional archived parameter or authentication context.

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 mention any parameters. The single parameter 'include_archived' is documented only in the schema with a clear description. Since the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('all projects/lists'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from other list operations (like ticktick_list_tasks or ticktick_list_folders) by specifying it's for projects/lists, not tasks or folders.

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 when to prefer this over ticktick_get_project (for single project details) or ticktick_list_tasks (for tasks within projects), nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication status.

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