rybbit_get_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the result is paginated and includes conversion metrics, but does not mention response structure, default sorting, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is a minimum viable disclosure but not rich.

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?

A single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words.

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 output schema, the description should explain return shape. It mentions 'conversion metrics' but not the structure of a goal object or pagination metadata. For a tool with 11 parameters including filters and date ranges, the description is too thin to fully guide usage.

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?

All 11 parameters have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond confirming pagination (page/limit) and metrics.

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'), names the resource ('goals'), and adds key details ('paginated list', 'conversion metrics'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_create_goal, rybbit_update_goal, and rybbit_get_goal_sessions.

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 goals and their metrics but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like rybbit_get_goal_sessions or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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