paperclip_get_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior like what happens for an invalid or missing goalId, nor what the returned details contain.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter getter and is immediately understandable.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, the absence of an output schema and any note about response behavior or error cases leaves mild gaps in context for an agent.

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%, so the input schema already documents the only parameter, goalId, as 'ID of the goal'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific goal'), so an agent can tell it is a read operation for a single goal. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like paperclip_list_goals, so it misses the top score.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would call this when it needs details about one specific goal rather than a list of goals. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as paperclip_list_goals.

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