get_goals

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes retrieval behavior and filtering, but does not disclose pagination, sorting, or performance characteristics. For a list tool, basic behavioral traits like result limits or ordering are missing.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise but includes essential filtering info. However, it is in Japanese, which may affect readability for non-Japanese users, but structurally it's efficient.

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 complexity of 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return format or any constraints like maximum results. With 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but lacks depth for complex filtering.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing that filters exist. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a list of team goals with filtering options. The verb 'get' and resource 'goals' are explicit, and filtering capabilities are listed, distinguishing it from siblings like get_goal_detail (single goal) and get_overdue_goals (filtered subset).

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?

Description implies usage for listing goals with filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like get_goal_detail or get_phase_summary. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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