get_habit_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auth category (V2) but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid habit_ids, or any rate limits. The description of after_stamp defaults is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, metadata tags, and separated Args/Returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists between the summary and Args, but overall efficient.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format and parameter details adequately. It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but the core functionality is sufficiently documented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains habit_ids as a list of IDs and after_stamp with format YYYYMMDD and the special value 0 for all history, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles. The description also documents the return structure.

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 it retrieves check-in records for habits. The verb 'Get' and resource 'check-in records' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like habit_checkin (check-in action) and list_habits (listing habits), though no explicit differentiation is 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?

The description provides related tools (list_habits, habit_checkin) implicitly guiding when to use each, but lacks explicit statements about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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