ticktick_get_task

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context beyond this, such as specifying it returns 'full details' including timestamps, but does not elaborate on error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations doing heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loaded the core functionality. It avoids redundancy, but the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 object with 2 fields), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str: JSON object'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and usage examples, though it lacks details on error handling or authentication, which are minor gaps.

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 compensates by listing both parameters (task_id and project_id) and their purposes in the 'Args' section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain parameter constraints (e.g., format of IDs) or interactions, so it only partially addresses the coverage gap, warranting a baseline score.

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 specific action ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific TickTick task by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks (which retrieves multiple tasks) or update_task (which modifies tasks). The verb 'Get' combined with 'full details' precisely communicates the tool's function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when you have a task ID and need its current details'), which implicitly distinguishes it from list_tasks (for multiple tasks without IDs) and other siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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