kilter_get_progression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: ordering of results, the list of per-period metrics (sessions, sends, unique climbs, flashes, attempts, hardest send/flash), and the optional wall-angle filter. This enriches the agent's expectation of output 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Use when' clause provides immediate usage context, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, parameter semantics, and expected output structure. The output schema presumably details the return shape, so the description need not repeat that. Nothing essential is missing.

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 must compensate. It does: it defines period as 'month' (default) or 'week' and calls angle an 'optional wall-angle filter'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be more precise about angle's allowed range or units, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand both parameters.

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-resource pair: 'Return climbing progression over time' plus an ordering constraint ('oldest period first'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like kilter_get_grade_pyramid or kilter_get_hardest_sends by focusing on time-based progression.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the user asks how they have progressed, trends, whether they are improving, or for a month-by-month/week-by-week view.' This gives the agent clear trigger conditions and even mentions the period parameter values, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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