list_design_goals

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only status, pagination/limit behavior, ordering, valid filter_status values, or what a result contains. For a simple list tool the risk is lower, but the disclosure gap remains significant.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a model of efficient completeness, but structurally it is clean.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return shape and filter semantics but does not. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict what it will receive or how filter_status='all' behaves.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, though only as defaults. The description adds no meaning about limit or filter_status beyond what the schema states.

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?

It states a list operation over 'saved design sessions (saved goals),' but the parenthetical is ambiguous and it never distinguishes this resource from nearby siblings such as design_session, list_designs, or list_design_versions. An agent can infer it lists saved goals, but not precisely what a 'design session' is in this system.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and nothing says whether this replaces list_designs, design_session, or a version listing. The only routing cue is the tool name, which is not enough for reliable sibling selection.

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