hcm_get_goal

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' phrasing is consistent with a read operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—it does not state what the response contains, whether it can return null, or any error behavior. With annotations present, the description contributes little additional 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified; it carries no information beyond the tool name and parameter, so the brevity reflects a lack of content rather than efficient structure. It is not structured to lead with important clarifications.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is not complete. It does not describe the return value, which is critical given there is no output schema. It also fails to note error conditions or related context. The annotations only cover read-only safety, leaving the agent without enough detail to correctly interpret the tool's results.

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 schema has one required parameter goalId (string) with no description coverage. The description's phrase 'by id' adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name itself; it does not explain the format of goalId, how to obtain it, or any constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get goal') and indicates the access method ('by id'), making it clear this tool retrieves a single goal by its identifier. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling hcm_search_goals, but the 'by id' phrasing distinguishes it from search-oriented tools.

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 such as hcm_search_goals or hcm_get_performance_document. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a valid goalId or that search should be used when the ID is unknown.

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