list_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation and gives an example with status='in_progress', but it does not clarify what 'open' means, the default behavior when status is null, or pagination/limit behavior. This is a moderate gap for a list tool.

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 extremely concise: a clear statement, a practical example, and a usage phrase. Every segment adds value and nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves ambiguity about the default status behavior and the definition of 'open goals'. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only provides an example for 'status' but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the meaning of status values (e.g., what other statuses are valid). The default behavior of status is also unclear.

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 'List open goals' with a specific verb and resource, and provides an example invocation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but 'open goals' implies a subset, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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 'For what are my goals/what's in flight' provides clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the intended use case is well conveyed.

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