getGoals

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 states it 'Get goals' but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list format, pagination, error handling), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like authentication needs or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning a top score for conciseness.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (no output schema), behavioral traits (no annotations), and usage context. While it covers the basic purpose, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, especially for a retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'section' well-documented (enum values, default, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it only repeats the enum options ('short-term or long-term sections') without explaining their significance or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Get goals') and specifies the resource type ('goals'), along with the scope ('from short-term or long-term sections'). It distinguishes the tool by focusing on goals, unlike sibling tools that handle tasks, notes, knowledge, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., if there were a 'getAllGoals' tool), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'short-term or long-term sections' but doesn't explain why one would choose this over other retrieval tools like 'getTasks' or 'getBacklog', or whether there are prerequisites (e.g., goals must exist). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage context.

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