list_habits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb 'lists'. It does not say whether all habits are returned, how they are ordered, whether sections or archived habits are included, or whether results are paginated.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. However, its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, keeping it short of a 5.

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 trivial zero-parameter list tool this is arguably the minimum viable, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent gets no picture of what a 'habit' record contains or what the list looks like. A brief note on return contents would have closed the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify parametrically, so it neither adds nor loses value here.

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 'Lists habits' essentially restates the tool name with no additional specificity. It gives no scope, ordering, filtering, or relationship to siblings like list_habit_sections or query_habit_checkins, so an agent cannot distinguish its role beyond the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as query_habit_checkins or list_habit_sections. Usage is only inferable from the name, which the rules treat as no real guidance.

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