kilter_get_hardest_sends

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description's added details are valuable: the uniqueness constraint ('unique per climb and angle'), the sort order ('hardest first'), and the default limit. These behavioral traits go beyond what annotations or the schema alone provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and result semantics are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and key parameter details. Every sentence earns its place.

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, two optional parameters, existing annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call it correctly. It covers scope, ordering, uniqueness, filtering, and limit behavior without needing to re-describe return values.

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 carries the burden for explaining parameters. It adds some meaning for both parameters: 'angle' is described as an optional wall-angle filter, and 'limit' is given a default of 10. However, it leaves ambiguity about the expected angle format and what exactly 'limit' limits (though 'hardest first' implies number of climbs returned).

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a specific resource ('the user's hardest sent climbs') and defines the result set precisely ('unique per climb and angle, hardest first'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like kilter_get_sends by focusing on 'hardest' and personal bests.

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 their hardest sends, best climbs, max grade, or personal bests.' It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. This is one notch below fully explicit routing.

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