get_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get all goals' without mentioning pagination, authentication requirements, potential response size, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no additional context about what 'all' means in practice.

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 that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It explains the core function but lacks details about return format, pagination behavior, or any limitations. The absence of annotations further reduces completeness, leaving the agent with limited understanding of what to expect when invoking the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (team_id and include_completed). The description adds minimal value by clarifying the workspace context for team_id, but it does not introduce any new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'goals' with the scope 'in a ClickUp team/workspace.' It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_teams and get_spaces, and from goal mutation tools (create_goal, update_goal, delete_goal).

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 implies usage for fetching all goals within a workspace, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_team_tasks or get_tasks) or any exclusions. It is a direct statement without contextual recommendations.

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