get_goal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (id, key, name, owner, archived status) and the verb 'fetch' implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, required permissions, or any side effects. For a simple read-like tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary detail and every word contributes value.

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?

For a simply shaped tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what is fetched, how to identify it, and what is returned. It does not elaborate on failure scenarios, but that is not critical for this simple fetch operation. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 already includes a description for the only parameter (goalKey) with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('an Atlassian Goal by its key'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_goal_latest_update and search_projects. It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when you have a known Atlassian goal key, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools. Given that siblings exist (e.g., get_goal_latest_update), this is a missed opportunity for clearer usage guidance.

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