kilter_get_projects

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: a project is tracked per (climb, angle), sending it at another angle does not remove it, and results are sorted by most recently tried then most attempts. No contradiction with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: core definition, when to use, projection identity, sort order, and optional filter. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

The description covers the result definition, sort order, and optional angle filtering, with an output schema present to document return values. The only notable gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which is minor given its simple role and default.

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 explains that angle is an optional filter and clarifies per-angle semantics, but it never describes what the limit parameter controls beyond the schema default of 50.

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?

Opens with a precise definition: 'Return the user's projects: climbs attempted but never topped at that wall angle.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and the distinguishing project concept, allowing an agent to separate it from sibling tools like get_sends or get_hardest_sends.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks what they are working on, unfinished climbs, or what to try next.' It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the given context is clear enough to prevent common misuse.

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