Get Habit Check-in History

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

No annotations are provided, and the description uses 'Get' to imply a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details about return format, pagination, limits, or whether the operation is safe. It adds the date-filter context but remains minimal.

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?

A single, concise sentence fully conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and leaves no filler, making it easy 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?

The tool is simple, and the schema documents both parameters fully. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description does not explain what a response contains (e.g., fields like date, habit_id, status) or any edge cases. It is adequate but minimal for complete agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'habit_ids' and 'after_date' already described. The description adds slight reinforcement ('one or more habits' and 'from a specific date onward') but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('check-in records'), and the scope ('for one or more habits from a specific date onward'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticktick_get_habits (which lists habits) and ticktick_checkin_habit (which records a check-in).

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 implies its use case: retrieving historical check-in data for habits. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_habits or checkin_habit) or when not to use it. Context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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