list_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful non-annotation context — that per-goal computed fields (pace comparison, days since check-in, due flag) are included — but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or whether inactive goals are excluded by default.

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?

One compact clause with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant content (what fields come back) is front-loaded. It reads as a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, which is the main structural weakness.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does partially by enumerating the surfaced fields. However, it omits the default behavior for inactive goals, result ordering, and any pagination or volume characteristics — gaps an agent needs to call this correctly.

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%: the single include_inactive parameter is already documented as 'Include paused/done/dropped goals'. The description adds no parameter detail and notably does not state the default filtering behavior that this flag implies.

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 names the resource (goals) and the specific attributes surfaced — progress vs pace, days since check-in, check-in due flag, linked habits — so an agent can tell it is a read of goal status rather than a mutation. It is a noun-phrase fragment with no explicit verb, and it does not name-scope itself against siblings like log_goal_checkin or get_context, which keeps it below a 5.

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 or when-not-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_context or weekly_review that also summarize goal state. The agent must infer that this is the listing endpoint from the name alone.

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