get_habit_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed analytics give some sense of output. However, it does not mention behavior such as the time window used for monthly/yearly completions, how invalid or missing habit IDs are handled, or whether any side effects occur.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the key analytics categories in a compact, scannable format. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 one-parameter read operation without an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation information: what the tool does and what high-level metrics it returns. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the exact return shape or error behavior, but the low complexity keeps this gap minor.

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 description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, habitId, is described as 'Habit ID.' The description adds little beyond that—'for a habit' merely restates the parameter's role. Since the schema already carries the parameter meaning, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'analytics for a habit,' then enumerates the returned metrics: streaks, completion rate, monthly/yearly completions. This distinguishes it well from siblings like list_habits, which retrieves raw habit data, and toggle_habit_entry, which is a write operation.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool is for analytical summaries of a habit rather than raw listing or editing. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any exclusion/when-not-to-use guidance.

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