Set goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'records the completion condition' and starts a loop, but does not explain what happens if set_goal is called again while a goal is active (overwrite? error?), nor does it cover side effects or required permissions. The description is too brief on behavior.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides a usage instruction. No redundant or extraneous information. Highly efficient.

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 presence of three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core usage pattern but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., re-calling set_goal, what happens on max_turns reached, error handling). It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: for session_id, it explains it's generated when omitted and should be reused; for max_turns, it clarifies it is a hard turn budget. This additional detail justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 starts a 'run-until-done goal loop' and records a completion condition. It mentions the follow-up tool check_goal, distinguishing set_goal as the starter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with clear_goal or get_status.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to start a goal loop) and instructs the agent to work toward the goal and call check_goal each turn. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if a goal is already active) or other alternatives, but the provided instruction is clear.

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