tic_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds useful output details (every Tic note with open/completed task counts) but does not go beyond that to disclose potential limitations, pagination behavior, or edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, this aligns with the calibration bar for a read-only list tool.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operational behavior, the second provides usage timing. The core action 'List every Tic note' is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a parameterless tool with a closed-world read-only annotation and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it returns (every list with counts) and when to invoke it. The output schema can carry any additional return-field details, so no further prose is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema shows no properties. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate because there is nothing to document.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'List every Tic note' with the additional detail 'with how many tasks are open and completed.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tic_read (reading a specific note) and tic_search (searching). An agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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 phrase 'Use this to discover what lists exist before reading one' gives clear contextual guidance for when to call this tool – as a precursor to reading a specific note. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling (tic_read) or state exclusion conditions, but the intent is unambiguous for a list-first workflow.

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