goal_show

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what the operation returns and frames the tool as a read action by saying the worker 'should read this', implying no side effects. It does not discuss errors or auth, but for a simple show operation this is adequate.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the output content; the second provides the usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-goal retrieval tool, this description covers the return content and the when-to-use guidance, and the schema covers cwd. It does not explain not-found behavior or output format, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool.

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 only 50%: the cwd parameter is documented but the required name parameter is not. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap. The agent must infer that 'name' selects the goal to show.

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 what the tool returns: one full goal with objective, definition of done, exclusions, constraints, and item counts. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'display', but the phrase 'One goal in full' plus the tool name make the purpose clear and distinguish it from a goal 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?

It explicitly tells the worker when to call this tool: before starting work, so it can verify that what it builds serves the goal. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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