derive_subgoal

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that agents cannot create top-level goals and that drafts surface in a pending queue. However, it does not specify idempotency, side effects, or what happens on success/failure.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: main purpose, constraint on top-level goals, and status guidance. No wasted words, and the key purpose 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?

The description explains the core workflow and draft behavior but lacks details on the return value, uniqueness of title, or how success_criteria are used. Given no output schema, more completeness would help.

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 description adds value for the 'status' parameter by explaining when to use 'draft' vs 'active', but it does not explain other parameters like 'type', 'success_criteria', or 'priority'. Schema coverage is 63%, and the description mostly repeats schema for 'rationale' without enriching it beyond what is already stated.

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 clearly states 'Propose a sub-goal under an existing parent goal' using a specific verb and resource. It reinforces that parent_goal_id is mandatory and that agents cannot create top-level goals, which distinguishes this tool from any potential goal-creation siblings.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool, including the distinction between human-directed (default 'active') and autonomous loops (pass 'draft'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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