tool_get_funnel_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It tells the agent the returned metric categories, which is useful context, and the read-oriented verb 获取 implies a safe retrieval operation. However, it does not disclose whether this requires authentication, whether data is scoped to the current user, or any other operational behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource immediately. The parenthetical metric list is long but serves the purpose of specifying the output scope, so it earns its place, though it slightly bloats the sentence.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return values; it nonetheless lists them for scope. For a simple parameterless read tool, this is nearly complete, with the only gap being the absence of explicit usage guidance.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming that the call requires no inputs.

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 specific verb (获取/get) and a precise resource (个人求职全流程转化漏斗统计/personal job-seeking conversion funnel statistics). No sibling tool provides analytics or funnel data, so it is clearly distinguishable from the resume, JD, project, tracking, and schedule tools.

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 implies usage by naming the exact metrics returned, but it never states when an agent should call this tool versus other tracking tools. There is no direct sibling alternative for funnel analytics, so the lack of explicit guidance is less harmful, but the description does not actively route the agent.

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