Get Employee Goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (title, description, percentComplete, status, dueDate, milestones) and notes that milestones apply only to milestone-based goals. However, it does not mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is strictly read-only (though 'Get' and 'Returns' imply this). Provide more context on edge cases would increase transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the tool's core purpose, the second lists the key return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential return shape and purpose. It could optionally note the filter parameter's effect, but the schema already enumerates 'open', 'closed', and 'all' with a default. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly for a straightforward goal-retrieval task.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'employeeId' and 'filter' (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it only mentions return fields. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters, and the description does not need to repeat that information.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Get performance goals and objectives for an employee.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-employee-photo or list-company-files, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage when you need an employee's goals, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use get-employee-directory instead for contact info.' The purpose itself gives enough context for a straightforward getter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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