goal_membership

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: imported features inherit goal membership from document headings, so membership reflects filing location rather than objective alignment. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only or what the output shape will be.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays reasonably concise. The middle sentence supplies useful background about import-time inheritance, though it is slightly longer than necessary for the core instruction.

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?

The description provides strong context about why membership may be stale and when to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and sparse parameter details in the description, an agent still lacks complete guidance on what response to expect and how to format the goal identifier.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate. It implies the 'name' parameter refers to a goal, but it does not clarify the expected format, how the goal is identified, or what 'cwd' contributes beyond the schema's existing description.

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 identifies the tool's scope as everything filed under a goal, and explains its purpose is re-testing membership against an agreed objective. It distinguishes the concept from merely listing features by describing the filing-location origin, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list'.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Run this after refining a goal that already holds work.' This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it.

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