goals_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It accurately suggests a read-only operation, but does not disclose details like pagination, response format, whether archived goals are included, or access requirements. Basic behavior is clear, but richer context is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It wastes no space and directly states the purpose.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, the description is adequately complete: it states what is returned (all goals in the workspace) and implies the scope. It could be enhanced by mentioning special cases like pagination or empty results, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 already fully documents workspace_id with 'The ID of the workspace' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 all goals') and the resource ('goals') scoped to a ClickUp workspace. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like goals_get (which implies a single goal) and goals_create.

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 'all goals' clearly conveys that this tool is for listing the complete set of goals in a workspace, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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