get_goal

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'text over 4000 characters is marked'. This is a useful detail that affects how an agent interprets results. The statement 'without modifying it' is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and no contradiction exists.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a single important behavioral detail. There is no filler or repetition of what annotations already state.

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?

This is a simple tool with one required parameter and a read-only safety profile already covered by annotations. An output schema exists, so the return format does not need to be described. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (4000-character marking) and leaves little missing for correct invocation, though it could be more explicit about how thread_id maps to a Goal.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the thread_id parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description provides no additional semantic meaning, such as what goal state is associated with the thread or whether thread_id refers to a specific goal thread. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 and resource: 'Read persistent Goal state'. It clearly identifies the tool as a read operation on Goal state, which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like create_thread and send_message_to_thread. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from read_thread or get_operation, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides the purpose but no context about when read_thread, get_capabilities, or get_operation would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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