get_habit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the response is the 'source of truth for recordings' and omits title/settings. This helps the agent set expectations beyond the schema without contradicting the read-only hint.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core purpose comes first, followed by the key limitation and pointer to the sibling tool. Every line 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and one relevant sibling, this description is complete. It names the source parameter, clarifies the record scope, and warns about missing fields, covering everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single parameter habit_id is already described as 'Habit ID (from list_habits)'. The description adds little beyond the schema, mentioning habitId but no new format or constraints, so a 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a habit's server tracking record with its full history') and explicitly differentiates it from list_habits by noting the response lacks title and settings. An agent can confidently identify this as the single-habit full-history retrieval tool among siblings.

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 clearly states this is for a single habit and points to list_habits as the source for title/settings, giving useful routing context. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the alternative is named and the scope is clear enough.

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