List goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: pagination defaults (25, capped at 100), clamping instead of erroring on out-of-range values, case-insensitive glob matching, and the explicit warning that 'ref' is an opaque extensionless identifier rather than a disk filename. These are non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Front-loads what is returned and why before the operational details, and every sentence adds distinct information. It is dense, running several clauses together, but nothing is redundant or filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, yet the description still names the returned fields; combined with complete parameter semantics, paging behavior, and the ref/get_gol routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters: glob (pattern matching the id, case-insensitive, None default lists everything, empty string matches nothing), plus max_results/offset paging semantics with defaults and clamping behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (goals), enumerates the returned fields (ids, titles, statuses, refs), and scopes it to the configured goal base directory. An agent can distinguish it from get_gol and the other list_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('for context before addressing one by id') and routes the ref case to get_gol ('use it with the get_gol tool instead'). It stops short of stating what it is not for beyond that single case, but the primary when-to-use and one alternative are clearly named.

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