List Habits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states this is a read-only list operation and specifies the included fields (name, frequency, goal, streak info), but does not disclose potential caveats such as pagination, ordering, or whether only active habits are returned.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler words. Every part earns its place.

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 list tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields. Although there is no output schema, it gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not reference sibling tools, but that is not required for this simple GET-style operation.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (name, frequency, goal, streak info), surpassing the empty schema baseline.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'habits' and scope 'all in your TickTick account'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_habit_sections or create_habit by stating it lists all habits and the included data fields.

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 use when you need an overview of all habits and their tracking info, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives such as ticktick_get_habit_sections or ticktick_get_habit_checkins. No exclusions or situational context is provided.

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