ticktick_list_tasks

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about the prerequisite (need project ID) and clarifies it fetches 'all active tasks' rather than filtered subsets, which isn't covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded purpose. The examples are helpful but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by adding practical guidance or clarifying usage.

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 (single parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (described in the returns section), the description is complete. It provides purpose, usage guidance, parameter context, and output format without redundancy.

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 explaining the single parameter's purpose ('Project ID to list tasks from') and providing guidance on how to obtain it (via ticktick_list_projects). However, it doesn't add format details or constraints beyond what's implied. With only one parameter, this meets baseline expectations.

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 ('List all active tasks') and resource ('in a specific TickTick project'), distinguishing it from siblings like ticktick_get_task (single task) and ticktick_list_projects (projects rather than tasks). It precisely defines scope with 'active tasks' and 'specific project'.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use ticktick_list_projects first if you don't know the project ID' and includes two concrete examples ('Show me my tasks in the Work project' and 'What's on my to-do list?'). This clearly differentiates it from alternatives and provides practical application scenarios.

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