list_goals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains that include_capabilities=true appends a 'full catalog' that is 'large', informing the agent of an output-size tradeoff. It also clarifies that write tools resolve current goals themselves, preventing unnecessary calls. Minor gaps remain (e.g., pagination or exact response shape), but the output schema exists to cover structure.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and output, the second gives usage triggers, and the third covers negative usage and the parameter caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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-optional-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use, what it returns, when to pass the parameter, and when not to use it. No critical context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying include_capabilities to a specific user intent ('what kinds of goals Wellness Project supports') and explicitly warning that the appended catalog is 'large'. This helps the agent decide when to set the flag, which is more actionable than the schema's generic phrasing.

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 ('Analyze or show the user's current and past goals'), names the resource ('user's goals'), and enumerates the exact return categories: active/paused formal goals, completed/historical formal goals, and current standard targets. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling write tools by noting it should not be used to fetch an ID for create_goal or update_goal.

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?

Explicit usage conditions are provided: use when the user asks about their goals or wants a review/analysis. The description also gives a clear when-not-to-use rule ('Do not call this tool merely to obtain an ID before create_goal or update_goal') and a precise condition for setting include_capabilities. This fully routes an agent to the correct tool and parameter choice.

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