kilter_get_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by defining the result as a compact aggregate of the whole Kilter history and enumerating the totals included, such as sends, flashes, attempts, and hardest send/flash.

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?

Two sentences with the core action and resource front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently adds when to use it and what totals it covers, with relevant example queries that earn their 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 zero parameters, annotations confirming a safe read operation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells an agent when to invoke the tool and what kind of information it will receive.

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 tool accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics require no additional explanation. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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?

Description names the action ('Return'), the resource ('compact overview of the user's whole Kilter history'), and the scope ('whole Kilter history'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that return granular lists or specific statistics.

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 first' and gives concrete triggers: broad questions like 'how is my climbing going?' and needs for totals. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier but provides clear context.

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