get_goals

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

The description lacks behavioral details. It does not mention that the tool is read-only (implied by 'get'), whether authentication is required, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more context but fails to do so.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is positive for conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less effective. It earns its place by being succinct but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the scope of goals returned, the effect of the debug parameter, or any constraints. The tool is simple, but the description still lacks sufficient context for the agent to use it correctly.

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 includes a 'debug' parameter with a default value, but the description does not mention it or explain its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it completely ignores the parameter.

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 retrieves all goals from Amazing Marvin, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_projects or get_all_tasks, which might cause confusion for an AI agent selecting between similar list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that it retrieves all goals without filtering, nor does it compare to other retrieval tools like get_all_tasks or get_projects.

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