Habitica: today's overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates what the snapshot contains and flags edge-condition warnings such as a new day not yet started, though it says nothing about response size or limits.

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 with no filler: the content inventory comes first, followed by the routing advice. Every clause contributes either scope or usage direction.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly — what it returns, when to reach for it, and the warning semantics. No essential gap remains.

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 100% and the single response_format parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the burden. The description never mentions response_format or how verbosity affects the returned snapshot, adding no meaning beyond the structured field — baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair (a snapshot of the user's Habitica day) and enumerates the contents: character stats, due dailies, to-dos, habits, and warnings. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like habitica_list_tasks, which retrieve a single task category rather than an aggregated daily state.

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?

It gives explicit entry-point guidance — "Start here when the user asks what is pending or how they are doing" — which routes the agent ahead of the list/get siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion case, so it falls short of a full 5.

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