mgmt_goals_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List counter goals.' It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how pagination works, or whether deleted goals appear by default.

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 extremely compact with no filler words. The documentation URL adds some context, though placing the URL before the actual action means the key verb 'List' is not 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 read-only list endpoint with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable and an agent can identify the tool and its required counterId. However, no output schema or behavior details exist, and the description does not mention authentication, response shape, or deletion behavior, leaving gaps for confident invocation.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters including counterId and useDeleted. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

The description states the operation ('List') and resource ('counter goals'), making it clear the tool returns goals for a counter and distinguishing it from the sibling goal get/create/update/delete tools. It lacks explicit scoping details such as whether deleted goals are included, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mgmt_goal_get or other list tools. The verb 'List' implies the use case, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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