kilter_get_sends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the meaning of the 'flash' status, the default limit (50) and maximum (500), and the date format (YYYY-MM-DD). It does not disclose pagination behavior or whether filters are inclusive, but for a read-only query tool this is sufficient given the 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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and ordering, and the second sentence packs in usage context, the flash clarification, and all filter details. Every word earns its place, and it is structured to give the most important information first.

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 moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the filters, the default behavior, and the meaning of a key status. It doesn't cover edge cases like inclusive date ranges or the exact output shape, but the output schema presumably handles that. The usage guidance is also present, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the entire burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines each filter: limit with default and max, angle in degrees, and start_date/end_date in YYYY-MM-DD format. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and leaves no ambiguity about parameter meaning or constraints.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('climbs the user has topped (sent)'), and adds the ordering ('newest first'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like kilter_get_hardest_sends or kilter_get_grade_pyramid, which focus on different aspects. The clarification that 'flash' means topped on the first try further sharpens the purpose.

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 says 'Use when the user asks about their sends, ticks, completed climbs or flashes,' which gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough that an agent can route appropriately. The filter details (limit, angle, date range) also imply the tool is for querying sends with optional parameters.

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