User Path Flow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are empty when no events match and that transitions are ranked by user count, plus notes that the tool uses the product's own events. This adds context 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then concise parameter guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its 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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return type (ranked transitions, empty when no matches). It also explains parameter defaults and valid ranges. A slight gap is the lack of detail on the structure of a transition, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context: for 'start', it explains that omitting uses the most common start and references analyze_funnel; for 'window_days', it provides default and valid range; for 'product_id', it directs to whoami. This significantly aids an AI agent.

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 clearly states it traces user actions after a start event, returning a journey flow as a Sankey diagram ranked by user count. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_funnel by specifying the focus on post-event transitions.

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 explains when to use the tool (to see next-step transitions after an event) and provides an explicit alternative for listing event names via analyze_funnel. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for cumulative metrics.

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