Goals Get Goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the terse description does not contradict them. However, the description contributes no behavioral context beyond the annotations — no mention of output_mode shapes (summary/full/raw), field filtering, or what data the goal includes — so it adds essentially zero value here.

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?

'Get goal.' is under-specification, not conciseness — it duplicates the tool name and title, so the description does not earn its place as independent information. There is no front-loading problem, but there is also no content.

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 present, the description bears the burden of explaining what a goal entity contains, how summary/full/raw modes differ, and how this tool relates to goals_get_goal_budget_amounts. It does none of this. The schema and annotations partially mitigate the gap, but a two-word description is fundamentally inadequate for a 3-parameter retrieval tool in a large sibling family.

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 67%: the fields and output_mode parameters carry meaningful descriptions in the schema, and goal_id is self-explanatory, but the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics whatsoever. Since coverage falls short of the >80% threshold for the baseline-3 treatment, and the description compensates for nothing, a 2 is appropriate.

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 'Get goal.' is a word-for-word restatement of the tool title 'Get Goal' and adds zero information beyond the name. It fails to distinguish this from siblings like goals_list_goals or goals_get_goal_budget_amounts, so an agent cannot tell which retrieval operation returns the full goal object versus budget amounts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that a goal_id is required, nor does it differentiate from goals_list_goals (retrieve many vs. one) or goals_get_goal_budget_amounts (goal budget data vs. goal itself).

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