get_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the tool retrieves goals but doesn't disclose whether completed goals are included by default, whether it returns paginated results, what the response structure looks like, or any auth/visibility requirements. For a read-only retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero waste. However, it's concise to the point of under-specification — the description would benefit from one more sentence covering include_completed behavior or response scope.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return values, pagination, filtering by completed status, or which goal fields are returned. For a list-style tool, the description leaves significant gaps about what the agent can expect in the response and how to interpret the include_completed parameter.

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 coverage is 50%, with team_id already documented in the schema as 'The workspace/team ID'. The description adds minimal semantic value for parameters, but the include_completed boolean is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's 'all goals' phrasing suggests include_completed might be relevant but doesn't explain its default or effect. Baseline 3 for near-mid coverage but description adds little beyond schema.

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 all goals for a workspace' states a clear verb+resource (get goals) with a scope qualifier (workspace). It adds the 'all' qualifier which distinguishes it from get_goal (singular). However, it doesn't clarify whether include_completed is included by default or what the scope means relative to spaces/folders.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. There's a sibling get_goal (singular) and get_filtered_team_tasks, but no mention of when to choose this tool. The workspace scope is implied by the name and team_id parameter but never explicitly contrasted with space-level goal retrieval.

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