get_user_goals

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which already inform the agent that this is a safe, non-destructive read operation with idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description meets the lower bar but doesn't enrich behavioral understanding.

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, clear sentence: 'Get user nutrition and fitness goals.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without any fluff. This makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values or usage context. For a read-only tool with no parameters, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent on when and how to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here as there are none to explain. This aligns with the baseline score of 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get user nutrition and fitness goals.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('user nutrition and fitness goals'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_user_daily_summary,' which might also retrieve user-related data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate, which could lead to incorrect selections in a server with multiple user-data retrieval tools.

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