list_habits

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds the Full Access Token requirement, the lazy-registry behavior of the alternative endpoint, and the exact history format (time/value pairs in unix ms). These are behavioral facts beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler: core purpose first, then auth requirement, then an 'Important' caveat with a verification date. Every clause 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?

It covers what the tool returns, the required token, and a non-obvious failure mode. An output schema is present for structured return details, so no essential invocation context is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% and the description has nothing to add, which meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all habits as full documents incl. title, settings and history'. The word 'all' plus the detailed output format clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_habit and from a non-raw /habits endpoint.

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 explicitly says the non-raw /habits variant 'would be wrong here' and explains why (registry lazily created, missing never-recorded habits, responses lack titles). It also names the required auth variant, so an agent knows when and how to use this tool.

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