Goals List Goal Events

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. But the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of event ordering, pagination, return shape, or whether the goal must exist. It contributes nothing beyond what the annotations already establish.

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?

At two words, the description is terse, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no information about scoping, filtering, or return behavior that would justify such brevity, so it does not earn its place relative to what an agent needs to know.

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 and a large sibling set, the description leaves the agent without a clear model of what goal events are, what data the response contains, or how output_mode interacts with the listing. It is not complete enough for a tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation.

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?

Two of the three parameters (fields, output_mode) have descriptions in the input schema, but goal_id is undocumented and the description does not reference it or clarify that events are scoped to a goal. The description therefore adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to compensate for the 67% schema description coverage.

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 states the verb 'list' and the resource 'goal events', so it identifies the basic operation. However, it is nearly a verbatim restatement of the title and does not clarify what a goal event is or how this differs from related goals_* tools such as goals_list_goals or goals_get_goal.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like goals_get_goal, goals_update_goal_event, or goals_delete_goal_event. The description gives no context about prerequisites such as needing a goal_id first or situations where listing goal events is appropriate.

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