get_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. The description only states the retrieval action and ID specification but doesn't disclose what the tool returns, whether it errors on missing IDs, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation, this is a notable gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It communicates purpose and the ID mechanism in a compact form, but there's no elaboration on context or behavior. It's efficient but minimal.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what a successful/failed lookup yields. The description covers the basic operation but provides no completeness regarding return format, error behavior, or relationship to sibling tools. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate but lean.

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 the single parameter 'id' having a description 'エントリID (UUID)' (Entry ID (UUID)). The description adds no information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 '目標を取得 (IDで指定)' translates to 'Get goal (specified by ID)'. It uses a clear verb+resource (get goal) but is minimal and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_hobby, get_persona, etc., which all follow the same pattern. It does convey the basic purpose of retrieving a goal by ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the ID-based retrieval pattern is implied, there's no mention of when to use get_goal versus list_goals (for listing) or update_goal (for modification). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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