mgmt_goal_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context beyond what the name already conveys.

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 sentence with a supporting documentation link. It is appropriately minimal for a straightforward get operation, with no filler words. Every element (the action and the reference) serves a purpose, and the key point is front-loaded.

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 simple getter with a clear name and a schema that documents all parameters, the description is adequate but not rich. It doesn't mention the return value or any prerequisites like authorization, but these are implied by the operation type and the required counterId/goalId parameters. Overall, it's sufficient yet could benefit from noting that it returns a single goal's details.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter (counterId, goalId, pretty, callback) is already explained. The description adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, with high coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no additional value from the description.

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 states a specific action ('Get goal by ID') with the resource (goal) and identifier (ID). It is clear and unambiguous, and the appended documentation URL adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like mgmt_goals_list, though the verb 'get' vs 'list' implies a distinction.

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 mgmt_goals_list, mgmt_goal_update, or mgmt_goal_delete. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the name and the need for a goal ID, but this is not made explicit.

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