activation_funnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or any rate limits. The term 'local MCP event ledger' hints at a read operation, but it is not explicitly confirmed.

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 at two lines covering Chinese and English, but the bilingual format may be redundant for a single language environment. Still, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what an 'activation funnel' is and does not clarify the meaning of 'real local' vs. other scopes.

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 description adds meaning to the only parameter 'username' by clarifying it is an optional GitHub username filter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by providing context 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 evaluates real local first-session conversion events using the MCP event ledger. The verb 'Evaluate' and resource 'first-session conversion events' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like 'growth_campaign' or 'achievement_card'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions an optional username filter but does not specify scenarios where activation_funnel is appropriate or not.

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