Goals List Goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, default output, filtering behavior) beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise but under-informative. It lacks essential structure such as a usage note or parameter hints. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.

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 tool with 4 parameters (0 required) and no output schema, the description 'List goals' is grossly incomplete. It omits details about what is returned, how the parameters affect behavior, and how to handle common use cases like including archived goals.

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%, meaning two of four parameters have descriptions. The description 'List goals' does not explain any parameter semantics or provide examples. It fails to clarify how parameters like include_archived or output_mode affect results, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 'List goals,' identifying the verb (list) and resource (goals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like goals_get_goal (single) or goals_archive_goal (action). However, it lacks specificity about scope (all goals, active only) and does not mention the include_archived parameter.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include goals_get_goal for individual goals and goals_list_goal_events for events, but the description does not differentiate or provide selection criteria.

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