goal_unrefined

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses filtering criteria, ordering by work held, and the row-level doc_ref behavior. It implies a read-only report but does not explicitly state side-effect absence or pagination limits.

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?

Four sentences, all contributing either selection criteria, rationale, or workflow guidance. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Slightly wordy, but each 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?

With no output schema, the description explains that rows carry doc_ref where known, which is enough to support the refine workflow. It does not enumerate all return fields, but for a simple filtered list tool with one optional parameter, the coverage is adequate.

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 only parameter, cwd, is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add anything about how cwd affects the result, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 as a listing of goals lacking an objective or definition of done, ordered by carried work. It is distinct from generic goal_list and goal_show tools, but it does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 provides actionable guidance: refine the goals holding the most work first, and use the doc_ref to avoid searching the tracker. It implies a workflow but does not explicitly name the refine tool or state when not to use this tool.

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