get_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes progress and supports filtering by active/future/past, and the name clearly signals a read operation. It does not describe the output structure or any edge cases, but those are less critical given the output schema exists.

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: the purpose appears first, and the parameter details are cleanly separated. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the source, goal categories, progress inclusion, and status options. A short example or clarification of how progress is represented would make it complete, but nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully documents the only parameter: valid values ('active, future or past') and the default ('active'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw input schema and leaves no ambiguity about what to pass.

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 identifies the resource ('goals set in Garmin Connect') and its content (goal types and progress), which is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', and there are no sibling tools with a goal-focused purpose, so differentiation is not exercised.

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 Args section implies usage: call this tool to get goals and optionally filter by status, with a stated default of 'active'. It does not explicitly describe when to use it versus alternatives or list exclusions, but no sibling tool appears to cover goals, so the implied guidance is adequate.

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