get_goals

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

The word 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and there are no annotations to contradict this. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior, but for a simple getter this level of transparency is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by an Args section. It contains no filler and every sentence adds useful information.

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 provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly, including the parameter options. While it does not describe the return format, an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable.

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 input schema only provides a type and default for goal_type, but the description explicitly lists the allowed options ('active', 'future', 'past'), adding meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. Parameter semantics are fully covered.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('Garmin Connect goals'), and further specifies the three goal types (active, future, past). This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from the many other get_* sibling tools.

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 explains the purpose and the acceptable goal_type values, making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but since no other sibling tool retrieves 'goals', the usage guidance is sufficient.

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