ticktick_list_projects

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), but the description adds valuable context by specifying the return format (JSON array with id, name, color, closed) and that project IDs are needed for other tools. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances understanding beyond the structured hints.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details, usage guidelines, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters but important output semantics.

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 (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, the return format, and how it integrates with siblings. No gaps exist for this read-only listing tool.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms there are no inputs by focusing on the output and usage. It adds value by clarifying the tool's scope without parameter details.

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 TickTick projects (task lists) in the user's account'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ticktick_list_tasks (which lists tasks, not projects). It specifies that it returns projects with IDs and names, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios with 'Use when:' examples, such as 'What projects/lists do I have in TickTick?' and needing a project ID for other tools. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by indicating it's for listing projects, not tasks, and guides on using the output with other tools like creating or listing tasks.

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