get_goals

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The output schema exists but is not described. The description offers no additional behavioral context beyond the tool name. Score 1: no disclosure.

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 short sentence, efficient and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it could be expanded to improve clarity. It is concise, though some structure (e.g., separating purpose from parameter hints) would help. Score 4: concise but could be more informative.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema. The description is very minimal and does not explain what a goal is, the return format, or any nuances. The output schema may provide some completeness, but without seeing it, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. Score 2: incomplete given the lack of other context.

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 one parameter 'goal_type' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'active/future/past' which hints at the possible values, partially compensating for the missing schema description. However, it does not explain the meaning of each value or the effect on results. Given the low coverage, this is useful information beyond the schema. Score 4: adds value beyond 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 'Garmin 目标（active/future/past）' identifies the resource (goals) and hints at possible filtering by type. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., list, retrieve) and is not in English, which may reduce clarity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, but since no other tool mentions goals, it is somewhat unique. Score 3: adequate but not explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many health-related retrievals, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information. Score 2: no guidance.

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