get_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what it does but provides no context on read-only behavior, authentication requirements, whether the goal must belong to a specific workspace, or what happens if the goal_id is invalid. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It states the purpose clearly without padding. It's concise to a fault, however - the brevity comes at the cost of missing valuable usage and behavioral context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single-parameter tool, the description is minimal. Given this is a simple read tool, it doesn't require extensive documentation, but detail about what 'details' includes, whether it returns key results or just the goal itself, and the relationship to get_goals would strengthen completeness. The description is passable but leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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 'goal_id' documented as 'The goal ID'. The description itself adds no information about the parameter beyond this. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get details of a specific goal' uses a clear verb+resource pattern and correctly identifies the tool as retrieving a goal's details. However, it doesn't describe what 'details' entails or how it differs from the get_goals sibling which likely retrieves all goals. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the scope of details returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs the sibling get_goals or how it relates to other goal tools. The distinction between retrieving a single goal (this tool) versus a list of goals (get_goals) is implied by naming conventions but never stated explicitly. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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