track_habit

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, whether tracking overwrites or appends, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged for transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief to cover necessary details. It does not fully earn its place as it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 the lack of annotations and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. An agent would be uncertain about how to use the 'id' and 'date' parameters correctly, despite the simple nature of tracking.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'activity for a specific habit', but does not explain that 'id' is the habit identifier or specify the expected date format, leaving ambiguity.

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 specifies the action 'Track' and the resource 'activity for a specific habit', which is distinct from the sibling CRUD tools. However, 'an activity' is vague; it does not clarify what constitutes an activity (e.g., completion, count).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the habit must already exist). The sibling tools are unrelated, but the description omits context entirely.

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