goal_prune

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the dry-run default, the protected status of goals with work, and that Miscellaneous is always kept. This meaningfully informs the agent about side effects and safety guardrails.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary action, and the second adds the essential safety conditions. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important behavioral information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers the core behavior and safety constraints well. It does not specify the exact output format, but since there is no output schema and the action says 'List categories,' this is a minor gap rather than a functional one.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds important semantics around the apply parameter: omitting it results in a dry run, and even when applying, certain goals are never removed. This goes beyond the schema's 'Omit for a dry run.'

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 action: list categories with no features and optionally remove them, which clearly distinguishes it from goal_list or feature_list. The term 'categories' is slightly ambiguous but is clarified by 'goal with work' in the next sentence, meaning goal categories.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: identifying empty goal categories and optionally removing them. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like goal_list or goal_show for inspecting goals in more detail.

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