goal_list

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds context about the return format ('progress and deadline'), beyond what annotations provide. It clearly states the tool returns a formatted list of goals, indicating no side effects, consistent with the annotations.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding return details. No unnecessary words or fluff; every sentence 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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return format. It could optionally mention that the list contains all goals without filters, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple list tool. The mention of 'progress bars' adds useful context.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level info because none are needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but also does not miss anything.

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 explicitly states 'Get all savings goals with progress bars', which clearly identifies the action (get all) and resource (savings goals), with a specific detail (progress bars). It distinguishes from sibling tools like goal_create and goal_update, which involve mutation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name and the simple act of listing goals imply it should be used when a user wants to view all goals, without filtering or modification. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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