Get goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, setting a clear safety profile. The description adds the context that goals are 'local', implying no network dependency. This is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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 unnecessary words. Every part contributes to 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?

The description is adequate for a read tool with good annotations, but it does not mention the return format or structure (e.g., returns goal targets). Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what is returned would improve completeness.

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 50% (only privacy_mode has a detailed description; response_format lacks description). The tool description does not explain parameters beyond what is already in the schema, nor does it compensate for the undocumented parameter. An agent must rely on the schema alone for parameter meaning.

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 'Read local calorie, macro, and hydration goals', specifying the verb (read), resource (goals), and scope (local). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like nourish_set_goals (write) and nourish_goal_progress (tracking progress).

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 reading goals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nourish_goal_progress or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or context cues to help an agent decide between similar read tools.

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