finance_goal_understand

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read/write nature, side effects, required permissions, or what the action actually does. The routing details are generic and not specific to this tool.

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?

Description is short and to the point, with a clear first sentence identifying the action and a separate section for arguments. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the presence of many sibling tools and the complexity of finance domain actions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of 'goal_understand' or how it fits into the goal lifecycle. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks context for the agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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?

Description lists both parameters ('message' as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional JSON string), adding slight value beyond schema titles. However, schema coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples.

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?

Description states it runs the finance domain agent action 'goal_understand', but fails to explain what 'goal_understand' does. The verb 'run' is generic, and the resource is not defined. Sibling tools like 'finance_goal_plan' and 'finance_goal_execute_wave' imply distinct purposes, but this description does not differentiate.

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 tool versus alternatives such as 'finance_goal_plan' or 'finance_goal_record_task_result'. No context, prerequisites, or scenarios provided.

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