User Path Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: 'Returns the next-step transitions ranked by user count (most common first), empty when no events match' and notes it uses 'the product's own events.' This explains the output behavior and edge case, but does not describe pagination or detailed return structure.

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 concise yet information-dense, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by return behavior, usage guidance, and parameter semantics. Every sentence adds value; there is 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (ranked transitions, empty case), parameter semantics, and provides a pointer to a sibling tool for event name discovery. It is complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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%, with each parameter already described. The description enriches this by stating that `start` anchors the flow, omitting it uses the most common start, `product_id` comes from whoami, and `window_days` has a default of 30 and valid range 1–365. These details go beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Trace what users do AFTER a start event — the journey flow (Sankey) from the product's own events.' It specifies the resource (user path flow) and distinguishes it from the sibling analyze_funnel by focusing on next-step transitions and referencing a specific alternative for listing event names.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and an alternative: 'Pass `start` to anchor on an event, or omit for the most common start (call analyze_funnel with no steps to list the event names).' It also clarifies optional parameters and defaults, making it clear how to invoke it.

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