get_goal_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or any side effects. It only lists output contents without behavioral caveats.

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 a single concise sentence that starts with the action verb and enumerates the four report components. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

With no output schema, the description gives a reasonable idea of the report contents but does not explain the response structure, error cases, or whether the report includes all goals by default versus the optional filtering. It is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with zero annotations.

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% with a clear description for goal_id explaining the filtering behavior and default scope. The tool description itself adds no param-specific details, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and enumerates the exact resources: goal nodes, target metrics, progress counts, and global stop status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workspace_info or list_nodes by focusing on goal-level status tracking.

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 implies usage for checking goal status but does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. The schema's goal_id description adds some usage context by allowing filtering to a single objective, but this lives outside the main description.

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