get_goal_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return data (status, progress) and a specific status value to check. It does not detail error behavior or confirm read-only nature, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is fairly transparent.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and is straightforward, the description adequately covers purpose, return values, and a usage example. It could include an example or note on errors, but it is complete enough for a simple retrieval.

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?

Only one parameter (`goal_id`) with a schema description that already mentions it comes from `create_goal`. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 tool returns goal status and progress, listing specific return fields (who claimed, step completion, plan generation status, progress report link). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like `list_goals`, but the 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?

The description gives a concrete use case: check plan generation completion or monitor progress. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the provided context is helpful.

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