Goals List Goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the operation. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or how include_archived interacts with results, so it adds no transparency 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?

At only two words, it is maximally concise and front-loaded; there is no filler. The brevity is a completeness concern, not a conciseness flaw.

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 simple read-only list tool with strong annotations and fairly descriptive parameter schemas, the description is minimally viable. It leaves include_archived semantics and return-shape details implicit, but an agent can likely call it correctly using the schema and annotations.

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%, and include_archived has only a title/default with no explanation. The description contains no parameter semantics and does not compensate for the undocumented include_archived behavior or the effect of output_mode/fields.

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 ('List') and resource ('goals'), and the plural form signals a collection operation that is distinct from goals_get_goal. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from goals_list_goal_events or describe scope, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus goals_get_goal, goals_list_goal_events, or other goal tools. An agent must rely on the tool name and sibling context rather than the description.

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