Habitica: list tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the id-reuse workflow, but says nothing about the default 20-item cap, truncation, or cost of an unfiltered listing. Useful but thin beyond the 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?

Two sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the filtering advice and the id-chaining hint.

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?

Six optional parameters, full schema descriptions and an output schema mean the description doesn't need to explain returns. It covers purpose and downstream id usage; only the truncation/limit behavior of an unfiltered listing is left unstated.

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 83% and two enums (status, task_type) are documented inline with detailed semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only gestures at 'filters' generically and adds no syntax, combination, or default behavior beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's tasks') plus the notion of filtering. It implies a collection-level read versus the single-task habitica_get_task sibling but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Prefer filters over listing everything' gives real selection guidance, and 'returned ids can be passed to the other habitica_* tools' describes the intended workflow into update/score/delete. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use habitica_get_task when you already have an id).

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