get_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and 'inspect', but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, permissions, or side effects. It adds some context about including key results and progress, but overall the behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it includes, and its purpose. It could mention error handling or response format, but the provided context is adequate given the low complexity.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds no new information about 'goal_id' beyond its use as an identifier. The baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 it gets a single Goal by ID, including key results and progress. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and the phrase 'Use to inspect a Goal's details and its key_result ids' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_goals (list all) and create_goal.

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 says when to use ('inspect a Goal's details') but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. While 'Use to' provides context, it lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or comparisons to similar tools.

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