get_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation beyond the 'get' prefix, no pagination behavior, no default ordering, and no note on what an empty result means. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 two-parameter, zero-required-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note on default behavior or return semantics, which keeps it at a bare-adequate level.

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 both the limit (1-50, default 30) and status enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the status values and adds nothing about the limit or default behavior, so the baseline 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?

The description names the resource (goals) and the filtering dimension (status with enumerated values), so an agent knows this is a goal-retrieval tool. It does not explicitly state a verb like 'list/retrieve' or call out its distinctness from the health/fitness siblings, but the resource is unique enough to be unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. The status filter is the only implied usage signal, and it is not framed as a decision point.

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