boardsesh_get_ascents

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds behavioral context: entries are returned newest first, across all boards, and each entry represents one climb at one angle with attempt count. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the tool's output granularity.

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 four sentences with a clear structure: purpose, when-to-use, data shape, filters. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes, though the data-shape sentence could be inferred from 'ascents'; still, it's not bloated.

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?

For a 6-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description covers purpose, typical use cases, ordering, scope, and filter list. No critical selection information is missing; the only small gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but use cases already imply it.

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 100%, and the description's filter list (limit, board, angle, status, start_date/end_date) is purely a summary of the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the properties already convey. The baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('logbook entries') with a clear scope ('across every board') and ordering ('newest first'). This differentiates from sibling tools like boardsesh_get_sessions or boardsesh_get_summary, which operate on different resources.

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 explicitly lists concrete use cases ('recent climbs, sends, flashes, attempts, what they did on a date, or wants raw history') which distinguish from aggregated sibling tools. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit exclusion.

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