get_my_goals

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the read-only and user-scoped nature clear ('Get the authenticated user's ...'), and reveals key response contents. However, it does not disclose error behavior, empty states, auth failure handling, or whether related goal metadata is omitted.

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 efficient sentence with the key resource and response facets front-loaded. Every word contributes: the resource is scoped to the authenticated user, and the parenthetical enumerates the meaningful goal fields 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema getter, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly and know what domain data to expect. It could be more complete by describing the shape or semantics of the returned dates and state, but it is still sufficient for an initial agent decision.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description's mention of 'progress, target, state, dates' refers to the response rather than inputs, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('authenticated user's reading goals'), and clarifies the goal-related content as 'progress, target, state, dates.' This clearly distinguishes it from nearby sibling tools like get_reading_progress or get_reading_stats, despite no explicit sibling mention.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_reading_progress, get_reading_stats, or get_my_reading_journal. The intended context is implied by 'reading goals,' but no exclusions or routes to siblings are provided.

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