ticktick_list_tasks

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 minimal behavioral context by mentioning filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose aspects like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, which could be useful for a list operation.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing filters. Every word serves a purpose, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, 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 that annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the input schema is detailed, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for a list tool. It could improve by mentioning sibling tool relationships or output format hints, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 lists filtering options (project, priority, tags, search query), which aligns with the parameters in the schema. However, it doesn't add details beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions provide (e.g., format for priority values), so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced coverage.

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 ('tasks') with optional filtering, which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_completed_tasks' or 'ticktick_get_task', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'ticktick_get_completed_tasks', 'ticktick_get_tag_tasks'), there's no indication of which tool is preferred for specific scenarios, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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