TickTick MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Download attached files' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns file data or a download link, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and directly communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity (a download operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, download URL), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'download_format'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'original' vs 'compressed' entails or how to obtain task/attachment IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Download attached files' clearly states the action (download) and resource (attached files), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'ticktick_get_task_attachments' (which likely lists attachments rather than downloading them), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing attachment IDs from another tool) or compare it to sibling tools like 'ticktick_get_task_attachments' or 'ticktick_upload_task_attachment', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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