goalstory_about

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval/information tool, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address potential behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether this returns static content vs. dynamic data. The description is minimal on behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences. The first states what the tool does, the second states when to use it. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a simple informational retrieval tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what information will be retrieved and the usage context, but doesn't describe the return format or structure. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more detail about what 'information' means would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. It focuses instead on what information will be retrieved. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Retrieve information about Goal Story's philosophy and the power of story-driven goal achievement.' It specifies both the action (retrieve information) and the subject (Goal Story's philosophy/approach). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goalstory_get_story_context' which might also retrieve contextual information.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to help users understand the unique approach of Goal Storying.' This suggests the tool is for educational/contextual purposes rather than operational tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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