get_goal_latest_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and it discloses the nature of the return content (summary + detailed notes). However, it does not disclose behaviors like what happens if no update exists, error conditions, or response structure. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is suitable.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and content. It includes no filler or redundancy, and the parenthetical (summary + detailed notes) adds value without unnecessary length. This is concise and well-structured.

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 simple input (one goal key) and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of the return content. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the response (e.g., whether it's a single object, includes timestamps, etc.). It is sufficient for basic use but leaves some ambiguity about the return shape, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 only parameter 'goalKey' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description does not provide extra parameter information, but the schema already explains the format with an example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the specific resource 'latest status update' for an Atlassian Goal, including the content (summary + detailed notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_goal (which would fetch the goal itself) and get_project_updates (which operates at the project level). The purpose is 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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving a specific goal's latest update, which is sufficient context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude uses or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the sibling tools. A 4 is appropriate because it provides clear context without formal exclusions.

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