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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens to previously equipped items, or what the expected outcome is. The single Chinese phrase offers no behavioral insight.

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 two Chinese characters, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool correctly.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'equipping' means in this context, what happens when items are equipped, how this affects game state, or what the tool returns. The lack of any meaningful description leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero additional information about parameter meaning, usage, or relationships. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '装备物品' (equip item) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name in Chinese without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'equipping' means in this system, what resource is being acted upon, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'feed_pet' or 'cast_spell'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_inventory', 'get_mounts', or 'get_pets' that might provide items to equip.

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