boardsesh_recommend_climbs

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description reveals that at_level derives from the user's send history, excludes already-sent climbs, and falls back to a saved board configuration. This gives useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then add usage triggers and the one key behavioral prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema and safe read-only annotations, the description covers the main triggers, the at_level behavior, and the prerequisite that a saved board is used. It could add one line about how other kind values treat send history, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is already complete, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds extra meaning for at_level by explaining it uses send history and excludes sent climbs, plus the saved-board dependency. It does not over-explain the other parameters, which the schema already documents.

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 action and resource: suggest climbs the user has not sent yet from Boardsesh recommendations. It distinguishes this from sibling search/project tools by emphasizing recommendations and unsent climbs.

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?

It gives explicit trigger contexts such as asking what to try next, wanting new climbs, projects at their level, or something fresh. It also states the board-configuration prerequisite, though it does not name alternative siblings or say when not to use this tool.

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