withings_get_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at conditional behavior with 'if the user has set any' but does not state what happens when no goals exist (e.g., empty array vs error), nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or response structure. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 concise sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the core action 'Get health goals' and followed by clarifying examples. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and the conditional 'if the user has set any'. It does not specify the return format, but for a simple getter, this is a minor gap. The lack of annotations is partially compensated by the clarity of the purpose.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description meaningfully clarifies the lack of required inputs by focusing entirely on the return concept (health goals), which aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'health goals configured in the Withings account', with concrete examples (steps, weight, sleep targets). This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools that fetch measurements or activity data, even without naming them explicitly.

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 phrase 'if the user has set any' implies when the tool is relevant (there are goals to retrieve), but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings like withings_get_measurements or withings_get_sleep. Usage is primarily inferable from the tool name and description rather than stated.

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