Habitica MCP Server

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. 'Create new task' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, what happens on success/failure, or the response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate - it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic implication of creation.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place - it provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, which this description fails to achieve.

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 this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters (2 required), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the tool returns, error conditions, or any system context. For a tool that presumably modifies user data in a task management system, this level of documentation is insufficient for an AI agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (including enums for type, difficulty, and priority with clear value mappings). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create new task' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_task' with minimal elaboration. While it does specify the verb 'create' and resource 'task', it lacks any distinguishing details about what kind of task system this is or how it differs from sibling tools like 'score_task' or 'update_task'. It meets the basic requirement of stating what the tool does but doesn't provide meaningful differentiation.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_tag', 'delete_task', 'update_task', and 'score_task', there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus modification, deletion, or scoring. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or any usage boundaries.

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