get_reading_goals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get reading goals' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it returns all goals or filtered results, or any rate limits. The description fails to provide essential behavioral context beyond the basic read implication.

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 extremely concise ('Get reading goals.') but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While there's no wasted text, the single phrase fails to provide necessary context that would help the agent understand and use the tool effectively. This isn't effective conciseness but rather insufficient information.

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 that this is a simple read operation with 0 parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool that presumably retrieves user reading goals in a system with multiple goal-related tools, the description should provide more context about what exactly is retrieved and how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_goal_progress'.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add parameter-specific information (which isn't needed), it correctly reflects that this is a parameterless operation by not mentioning any inputs.

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 'Get reading goals' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish what kind of reading goals (e.g., user goals, system goals, all goals) or provide any context about scope or format. While it does include a verb ('Get'), it lacks the specificity needed to understand what this tool actually retrieves compared to sibling tools like 'get_goal_progress'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_goal_progress' or 'update_reading_goal'. Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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