summarize_goal_progress

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only lists what is returned, with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or read-only nature. For a query tool, this is minimal.

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?

Single sentence efficiently lists all key outputs. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds 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?

Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), description covers the main return values (counts, rate, blocked subgoals, risks). Minor omission: does not mention if additional details like timestamps or summaries are included.

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 has 100% coverage (one parameter 'goal_id' with description 'Goal ID'). Description does not add any additional information beyond the schema, so 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?

Description uses specific verb 'summarize' with resource 'goal progress' and lists concrete outputs (counts by status, completion_rate, blocked_subgoals, actionable risks), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like list_goals or export_goal_report.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., list_goals, export_goal_report). Implicit usage is clear (call when you need a progress summary), but no exclusions or context are provided.

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