get_steps_goal

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

The phrase 'device + user + sync status' hints that the response includes or depends on these elements, which is useful given no output schema. However, it is ambiguous—it could mean the return shape, data scoping, or freshness caveats. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 and front-loads the main purpose and date format. The trailing 'device + user + sync status' is cryptic and not clearly earned, which keeps it from a 5, but there is no fluff 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavior and parameter context. It omits what null means, what the response structure is beyond vague hints, and how device/user/sync status factor into the result. An agent would likely need to probe or guess to invoke this reliably.

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 provides a 'day' parameter with zero documentation and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add the important YYYY-MM-DD format. Yet it does not explain the default null behavior or whether null means 'today', leaving a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.

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 verb and resource: retrieving the steps goal for a given day. The YYYY-MM-DD format clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_daily_steps or get_weight_goal, though the word 'goal' implies a distinct resource.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention get_daily_steps for actual steps or get_weight_goal for a different goal type. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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