get_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns current goals and progress, which is a useful behavioral hint, but it does not mention read-only nature, data freshness, what happens when no goals exist, or any access requirements. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded ('Get active fitness goals') and the follow-up sentence provides essential return-value context. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the goal categories and the progress detail. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'active' means and clarify the 'etc.' list, but the output schema likely covers the return structure, and the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not mislead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get active fitness goals.' It clearly identifies the tool's domain (goals) and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that retrieve activities, heart rate, sleep, etc. The additional detail about returning progress adds further specificity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools, so an agent must infer that this is the tool for goal data based solely on the name and first sentence.

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