ticktick_start_pomodoro

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that it 'Requires v2 API authentication,' which is crucial for usage, and mentions linking to tasks, clarifying functionality. It could improve by noting potential side effects like starting a timer that might conflict with existing sessions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by supporting details in bullet-like sentences. Each sentence adds value, such as authentication requirements and task linking, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.

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 moderate complexity (starting a focus session), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (though not provided here), the description is reasonably complete. It includes key usage notes like authentication and task linking. However, it could benefit from mentioning output expectations or error conditions to fully guide the agent.

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 detail parameters beyond mentioning 'customizable duration' and linking to tasks. The input schema fully documents parameters like 'duration_minutes' and 'task_id' with descriptions, so the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Start a Pomodoro focus session') and the resource ('Pomodoro focus session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ticktick_start_stopwatch' or 'ticktick_stop_focus', which are related but distinct focus-related tools.

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 some context by mentioning 'The classic Pomodoro technique with customizable duration' and 'Can be linked to a specific task,' which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'ticktick_start_stopwatch' or when not to use it, such as if a focus session is already active.

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