kilter_get_logs

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: entries are returned newest first, each entry represents a climb/angle/date/tries combination, and filter semantics are explicitly defined. It does not cover every possible edge case, but it meaningfully supplements the annotation baseline.

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 in the first sentence and use cases immediately after. The filter list is dense but scannable, with defaults, units, and format specified in every relevant case. No sentence is redundant.

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?

All five optional parameters are semantically covered, the return ordering is specified, and the output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. The description gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its basic behavior.

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 full responsibility for explaining parameters. It clearly documents all five filters: limit with default and max, angle in degrees, topped as sends vs unsuccessful attempts, and start/end date format with inclusivity. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the user's Kilter logbook entries, newest first.' It further clarifies the unit of data ('one climb at one wall angle on one date'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kilter_get_sends or kilter_get_sessions. This makes the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'when the user asks about recent Kilter climbs, attempts, what they climbed on a date, or wants raw history.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the when-to-use guidance is clear and actionable enough for an agent to route to it correctly.

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