yandex_metrika_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List goals' without mentioning idempotency, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded. However, it is too minimal; it could include more context (e.g., prerequisites, output hint) without losing conciseness.

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 0 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about how the counter is specified (likely from a parent context) and does not explain what 'goals' are in Yandex Metrika, leaving the agent to infer.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, but there are no parameters to document. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List goals for a counter' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (goals for a counter). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yandex_metrika_counters_list (lists counters) or yandex_metrika_counter_stat (statistics). The scope is implied but not detailed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use scenarios. For example, it does not explain how the counter is identified or if this tool should be used after selecting a counter.

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