get_goals

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval, and the active/future/past clause clarifies the data scope. It could additionally state the default behavior when goal_type is omitted, but the input schema already provides that 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block adds necessary value by documenting allowed values that the schema does not provide, with no wasted words.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema that covers return shape. The description, combined with the schema's default value, gives an agent everything needed to call it 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?

The schema only provides a string type and a default, with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by defining goal_type as the type of goals to retrieve and explicitly listing the allowed values: 'active', 'future', or 'past'.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Garmin Connect goals'), and further narrows scope to active, future, or past goals. This clearly distinguishes it from the many activity, workout, and stats retrieval siblings.

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 purpose implies that an agent should use this tool when it needs Garmin Connect goals, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No close goal-related sibling exists, so the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap.

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