get_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states that it 'Returns complete goal details' and lists included fields, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any permissions, potential errors, or side effects. For a simple read, this is adequate but not rich, hence a mid-level score.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Get detailed information about a specific goal by its ID.' It immediately communicates the core action and then efficiently lists what is returned. No filler or redundant 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, the description appropriately explains the return value by enumerating key fields (description, metrics, parent/child relationships, recent updates). It covers the main purpose sufficiently for a simple get-by-ID tool, though it omits details like error behavior or permissions. Overall, it is complete enough for expected use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (goalId), including its ARI format. The tool description merely says 'by its ID' which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific goal by its ID', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('goal') with the distinguishing mechanism ('by its ID'). This separates it from sibling tools like list_goals (listing) and search_goals (searching), and from get_goals (plural) which likely fetches multiple goals.

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 clearly implies usage when you have a specific goal ID and want complete details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_goals or search_goals. The 'by its ID' phrasing provides clear context, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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