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. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and 'saved...across chats' indicates persistent storage. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect free behavior or reveal return format/ordering. It adds some context beyond the tool name but lacks explicit safety confirmation.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and persistence nuance. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to use it, though it could mention the optional filtering behavior or return value, but that is not essential given the schema coverage.

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% coverage for the lone 'status' parameter, which is described as an optional filter. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already documents it adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 lists saved financial goals, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved financial goals'). The phrase 'the agent should remember across chats' adds important context distinguishing it from simple listing by indicating persistence/memory. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'upsert_goal' (which creates/updates) and 'list_plan_notes' (which lists notes).

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 implies usage context: use when the agent needs to recall financial goals that should persist across conversations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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