agy_goal_status

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'return' implying read-only, but doesn't confirm lack of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., goal must exist), or potential errors. Minimal disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter. No wasted words, though could be slightly more informative.

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 simple tool with one param and output schema present, description is too minimal. It fails to explain return format, behavior if goal missing, or relation to sibling tools. Lacks completeness for effective tool selection.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'goal_id'. The description only states the overall function, leaving the parameter's role completely 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a compact aggregate state for a goal and its targets, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like agy_status and agy_result by focusing on aggregate state, but could be more specific about what 'compact' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like agy_status, agy_result, or agy_start. No prerequisites or context for usage provided.

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