goalstory_read_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'optional pagination' which hints at behavior for large datasets, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the 'overview' includes (e.g., summary fields vs. full details). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get an overview of the user's goal journey') and adds necessary context ('with optional pagination to manage larger sets of goals'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at pagination behavior, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, return format (e.g., what fields are in the 'overview'), or how it differs from sibling tools. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, more context would be beneficial.

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%, with both parameters ('page' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by contextualizing pagination ('to manage larger sets of goals'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., default values, constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an overview of the user's goal journey' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('user's goal journey'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'goalstory_read_one_goal' (single goal) and 'goalstory_count_goals' (count only), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'goalstory_read_stories' or 'goalstory_read_steps' which might overlap in scope.

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 implies usage context through 'optional pagination to manage larger sets of goals,' suggesting this tool is for browsing multiple goals. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'goalstory_read_one_goal' for a specific goal or 'goalstory_count_goals' for just a count. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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