list_goals

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It states it lists goals, implying a safe read operation, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, pagination, or default behavior. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 one sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the purpose. It is efficient for a simple tool, though adding an example or structure could improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 straightforward list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on output format, pagination, or default ordering. It is minimally complete for an informed agent to use 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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'status' by hinting at possible values ('active', 'completed', ...), which the input schema does not provide. However, the list is non-exhaustive and does not specify the default behavior when omitted. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially.

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 clearly states the tool lists goals with optional status filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different resources (tasks, notes, etc.) but could more explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like list_projects.

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 implies use when you want to view goals, possibly filtered by status. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear that other resources have their own list tools.

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