get_humanity_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read an item' implies a safe retrieval, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the module is static or user-specific, or how items are returned; it only hints that omitting index yields the whole module, which the schema already states.

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 tight sentence with the resource and its semantic role front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives purpose and content framing but leaves the return shape, the meaning of 'M1', and the distinction from sibling retrieval tools unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% and the single optional index parameter (0–4, omit for whole module) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Read an item' loosely confirms item-level retrieval, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (M1 — Humanity's Goals), and the parenthetical clarifies the content domain (the 'why' behind ethical behaviour). It is distinguishable from curriculum siblings like get_principle or get_code_of_conduct by module name, though 'M1' is opaque jargon an agent may not resolve without outside context.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling retrieval tools (get_principle, get_case_study, get_code_of_conduct). An agent must infer entirely from the module label whether this is the right tool for a given question.

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