goalstory_count_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it leaves the agent guessing about 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage note. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first defines the tool, and the second provides context. There is zero waste, making it appropriately sized and 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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects. It covers the purpose and usage context but does not address return values or potential constraints. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs without requiring additional explanation in the description.

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 the total number of goals in the user's journey.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('total number of goals'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'goalstory_read_goals' (which likely lists goals rather than counting them). The description is clear but lacks 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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for tracking overall progress and goal management patterns.' This suggests when to use the tool (for progress tracking) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'goalstory_read_goals' for detailed goal lists). It offers some context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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