get_habit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core action (get) and the parameter, but doesn't mention what happens if the habit isn't found (e.g., error vs null) or any other behavior. For such a simple getter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the argument definition, and a usage example. Every sentence earns its place, and the example aids comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, how to call it, and a sample. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need to be detailed here.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explicitly naming 'habit_id: ID of the habit' and providing an example with 'habit-1'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property name, though it's minimal.

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 'Get a single habit by its ID,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_all_habits (plural) and get_habit_checkins by focusing on a single habit by ID.

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 when to use (when you have a specific habit ID and need that habit) and provides a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear and excludes other operations like listing or checkins.

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