Get Goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the returned fields (gid, name, status, owner, team), supporting pagination, and indicating filter options, which helps set expectations about the tool's output and scope.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise summary of return fields and capabilities (filters, pagination). No redundant or filler content; every sentence provides necessary 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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema parameter coverage. The description covers the essential behavior (what is returned, filtering, pagination) and works together with the schema/annotations to give the agent full understanding without needing an output schema. It is complete for its complexity.

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%, with all 7 parameters richly documented (e.g., team, limit, offset, workspace, opt_fields, time_periods, is_workspace_level). The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, only mentioning 'team or time period' filters, which maps directly to the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully covers parameters.

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 'List goals in a workspace' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this from the singular asana_get_goal tool by indicating it returns multiple goal objects. It also mentions the return array and key fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: listing goals within a workspace, with optional team/time period filters and pagination support. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention asana_get_goal for single-goal retrieval, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but still conveys applicable usage scenarios.

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