team_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: status is derived from lanes rather than stored, and retracted goals are hidden by default with include_retracted flipping that. It omits that this is a read-only operation, plus ordering, pagination, and what fields come back — meaningful gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence opening with the verb and resource, followed by parenthetical and em-dash clarifications that each add information. It is dense but nearly waste-free; the only cost is jargon like "outcome layer above lanes," which assumes familiarity with the vocabulary.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core semantics: what entity, how status is derived, and the retraction-visibility default. What is missing — return field list and ordering — is modest but real given no output schema exists to fill it in.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's note about include_retracted largely restates the schema. It adds no syntax or example for the free-text q parameter (e.g. the "status:" prefix form), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List declared Goals") and immediately qualifies it with a derived status model (planned/in-flight/shipped computed from lanes). It also positions the tool relative to siblings by naming team_next and calling Goals "the outcome layer above lanes," so an agent can place it without opening a schema.

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 phrase "team_next picks the next one" implies this tool is the browse-everything counterpart to a pick-one tool, which is genuine routing signal. However, it never states when to use this versus team_goal_declare/team_goal_outcome or whether it is safe to call at any point; the guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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