taskguard_define_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains this tool defines a contract for later use, but does not disclose behaviors like overwriting on repeat calls, required permissions, error states, or return values. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences: the first gives an actionable directive ('Call this before starting meaningful work'), the second defines the function. No unnecessary words; efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains how this tool feeds into sibling tools (scope drift detection and verification), providing cross-tool context. Given moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), it reasonably covers when and why to use it, though it lacks details on return value and default behaviors.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'goal, non-goals, and explicit done criteria' which map to three of five parameters, providing context. However, it does not clarify 'title' or 'sessionId', nor detail the structure of 'doneCriteria' (objects with description and optional required).

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 tool's purpose as 'defines the task contract' including goal, non-goals, and done criteria. It distinguishes this from sibling tools (checkpoints, evidence, etc.) by positioning it as the initial step before meaningful work.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before starting meaningful work,' providing clear timing guidance. While it does not list alternative tools or when to avoid, the sibling context (e.g., taskguard_check_scope_drift for later) implies this is the setup tool, making it effective.

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