Funnel Step Sessions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read. It adds the semantic distinction between reached and dropped sessions, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response structure, pagination defaults, or date handling. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and result scope come first, and the use case is stated second. 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?

For a 12-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and use case, while the schema covers parameter semantics comprehensively. The main gap is that the description does not hint at the response shape or emphasize that the steps array must match the funnel definition, but the schema's reference to rybbit_analyze_funnel mitigates this.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents every parameter including mode, stepNumber, steps, filters, dates, and pagination. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('sessions'), and the exact scope: sessions that reached or dropped off at a specific funnel step. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like rybbit_analyze_funnel by focusing on session-level drill-down rather than funnel-level analysis.

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 states the intended use case: 'drilling into why users drop off at a particular funnel step.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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