get_all_habits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It states that it returns complete habit objects including IDs and explicitly notes that there are no parameters, which sets expectations. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the verb 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating operation. The example call adds transparency about invocation.

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 very concise: three short sentences plus an example. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence adds value—return content, usage hint, and invocation example. No fluff or redundant information.

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 simple list-all tool with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to invoke it. It includes an example and suggests a practical follow-up action. There are no obvious gaps in context.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description explicitly says 'No parameters' and provides an example invocation, which is more than sufficient for a parameterless tool. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and it is met.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List all of the user's habits.' This distinguishes it from the sibling get_habit (which likely retrieves a single habit) by emphasizing 'all'. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides usage context by stating that the returned habit objects (with IDs) enable direct follow-up actions like creating a check-in. It implies when to use this tool (when you need the full list), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without being exhaustive.

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