goalstory_read_one_goal

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 states the tool retrieves detailed information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and context. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the action more directly (e.g., 'Retrieves detailed information...').

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields like title, status, dates), which is critical for an agent to understand the return value. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context about the response structure and any behavioral nuances.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as a unique identifier. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific goal'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'goalstory_read_goals' (which likely lists multiple goals). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'goalstory_read_one_step' or 'goalstory_read_one_story', which have similar retrieval patterns for different resources.

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 ('to support focused discussion and story creation'), suggesting when this tool might be beneficial. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'goalstory_read_goals' (for listing goals) or other read tools for steps/stories, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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