boardsesh_get_hold_heatmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the exact output semantics: per-hold counts by hand/foot/start/finish usage and average difficulty. It also offers behavioral guidance that hold ids are wall positions and that the agent should reason about patterns and grade ranges rather than individual ids.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage conditions, output summary, and a practical example. Every sentence earns its place: no filler, no restating of the tool name, and the most important scoping guidance appears first.

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 read-only analytical tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, when to use it, how to combine it with grade parameters, and how to interpret hold ids. Since the output schema handles return-value details and the input schema handles parameters, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so all six optional parameters already have individual descriptions. The description adds a useful hint about combining a grade range with the heatmap, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per calibration, baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return which holds the wall's climbs use,' and immediately gives the analytical purpose of spotting strengths and weaknesses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary, get_grade_pyramid, and get_progression, which focus on different aggregations.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks about weaknesses, hold types they avoid or overuse, or what to train.' It also gives a concrete pattern for combining it with a grade range. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the trigger conditions are clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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