List subgoals matching filters (suite_id, suite_type, content_type, min_confidence, missing_pattern_only). Results capped by limit (default 50, max 100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| suite_id | No | ||
| suite_type | No | ||
| content_type | No | ||
| min_confidence | No | ||
| include_pattern | No | ||
| missing_pattern_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description only states the operation (list) and constraints, lacking transparency about the tool's impact or preconditions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List subgoals matching filters'), followed by filter enumeration and limit clarification. No redundant words; every 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?
The description covers the primary action, filters, and limit, but lacks context about what a 'subgoal' is, the expected output format (no output schema), and any prerequisites or error scenarios. Given the complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description provides a basic but incomplete picture.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists most key filters (suite_id, suite_type, content_type, min_confidence, missing_pattern_only) and explains the limit behavior (default 50, max 100). However, it omits the 'include_pattern' parameter entirely, and does not explain the meaning of each filter in depth, leaving some parameters with no semantic addition.
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 tool lists 'subgoals' with specific filters (suite_id, suite_type, content_type, min_confidence, missing_pattern_only) and a result cap. While it uses a specific resource term ('subgoals'), it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_suites or list_operational_heuristics, leaving some ambiguity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists filters and limit behavior, implying usage for filtered subgoal queries, but no exclusions or context about when not to use it (e.g., for broader listing use list_suites).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: finding patterns, cross-references, operational heuristics, requirements, listing, searching, and review stats. Overlap is minimal and well-differentiated by input parameters.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., find_patterns_for_task, list_requirements, resolve_id. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools cover core operations (list, get, search, resolve, review) for the framework domain without bloat. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.
Covers most needed operations for exploring the framework: listing suites, searching patterns, getting details, cross-references, review stats. Lacks a direct 'list all patterns' tool, but list_requirements and search_patterns partially fill that gap.
