mcp_engram_goal_list

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to specify important details such as ordering of results, how 'active' vs 'recent' are defined, or the effect of combining parameters. The tool appears non-destructive, but the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, the inclusion of an inaccurate filter ('parent') detracts from its efficiency and reliability.

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?

Given the tool has two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the returned goal objects (e.g., fields, ordering). It fails to define 'active' or 'recent' and does not mention pagination or limits, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the tool description adds misleading information by mentioning a 'parent' filter that does not exist in the schema. This harms rather than helps parameter understanding. The existing schema descriptions are sufficient, but the description's inaccuracy reduces the score.

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 'List active or recent goals' with optional filters, which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it inaccurately mentions filtering by 'parent' which is not present in the input schema, reducing clarity and potentially misleading the agent.

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 notes that the tool is 'useful for the engram-goal skill and for surfacing current intent in ki_hijacker / wake-up,' providing some context. But it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mcp_engram_goal_search or mcp_engram_goal_get_children, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool over alternatives.

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