metrika_list_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the scope is stated as exactly one counter id. However, it does not disclose whether access rights are needed, whether all goals are returned, or whether any filtering or pagination applies.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a necessary scope constraint.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter and an output schema. The description covers the main purpose and parameter meaning sufficiently for an agent to make a plausible call. It lacks explicit alternative routing and deeper behavioral details, but these are less critical given the simplicity.

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%, so the description must add meaning to 'counter_id'. It does this by clarifying that the parameter is a Metrika counter id and that it should be a single positive one. This meaningfully supplements the bare string type in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('goals') for a given 'Metrika counter id', which clearly separates it from sibling tools like metrika_list_counters or metrika_get_statistics. The qualifier 'one positive' adds scope, though 'positive' is slightly ambiguous (positive integer vs. a real/valid counter).

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as metrika_apply_goal or metrika_list_counters. The context of 'list goals for one counter' implies a simple read operation, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a recommended workflow.

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