agy_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions that imply mutations (create, start_target) but does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. The warning about 'dangerously_skip_permissions' is a useful clue but is far from comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters and 3 actions. The second sentence about dangerously_skip_permissions is a terse constraint that lacks context. It is concise but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to select an action, what parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but that does not compensate for the missing input semantics and behavioral context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 12 undocumented parameters. It only mentions one parameter (dangerously_skip_permissions) and only gives a compliance requirement, not meaning. All other parameters (model, prompt, goal_id, sandbox, objective, workspace, target_name, max_parallel, timeout_seconds, additional_directories) are left entirely unexplained.

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 clear resource ('bridge scheduler goals') and enumerates the supported actions ('create, start_target, status'), which distinguishes it from siblings like agy_run_start or agy_review_files. 'Manage' is broad, but the action list narrows the purpose enough for selection.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only usage hint is the constraint that 'dangerously_skip_permissions must be true when supplied,' but that is a parameter constraint, not guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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