get_habit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the response contains the full history as 'the source of truth for recordings' and explicitly disclosing the absence of title and settings.

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 front-loaded: the core action and resource appear in the first clause, followed by a single valuable caveat about missing fields. There is no wasted wording, and every sentence 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?

Given that the tool has only one parameter, a well-described input schema, read-only annotations, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the response's scope and explicitly points to list_habits for missing metadata, making it complete for correct invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with the description 'Habit ID (from list_habits),' which is already clear. The tool description mentions 'habitId' but does not add format, source, or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: the server's tracking record for a single habit, including 'habitId + full history.' It also distinguishes itself from list_habits by noting exactly what the response omits, making the tool's purpose immediately clear to an agent.

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 useful context about when to use this tool versus list_habits, noting that title and settings are not included in this response and 'those are in list_habits.' It gives a clear sense of the available alternatives, though it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need full history' or list exclusion cases.

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