goal_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a COMPACT default view, done nodes omitted unless include_done is true or a status filter is given, and the option to pass view="full". It omits pagination, result caps, and any auth/permission notes, which are relevant for a graph-listing tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds one dense sentence covering return shape, default filtering, and the escalation path to goal_get/full view. The parenthetical field list is long but earns its place by preempting a schema lookup.

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 7-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing both the default compact payload contents and when nodes are excluded. Remaining gaps (pagination/limits, ordering) are minor but real.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it lists exactly which fields the compact view returns, explains the view default's effect on payload/brief, and clarifies the provenance of objective_run_id (from goal_set_objective/goal_get/goal_decompose).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List goal nodes, filtered') and immediately enumerates the read modes (your lane, a status column, all milestones, one objective's run). It also explicitly names the sibling it is not, telling the agent to call goal_get for a single node's full payload.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use contexts (reading the graph by lane, status, milestones, or objective_run_id) and routes single-node reads to goal_get. It does not mention goal_frontier, which is the closest sibling, so the alternative coverage is clear but not exhaustive.

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