User Journeys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful analytical context about the output (page sequences and session counts) but does not disclose behavior such as default steps, journey limits, or aggregation specifics. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence explains the deliverable without repeating schema information.

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 schema is rich and fully documented, annotations cover the operational profile, and the description conveys the output shape (page sequences and session counts) despite the absence of an output schema. It could mention defaults or edge cases, but the combined description and schema are sufficient for a competent 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage across all 9 parameters, so the schema itself documents the parameters fully. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves user journey/flow analysis showing the most common navigation paths through the site, including sequences of pages and session counts. This distinguishes it from analytics siblings like overview or funnel tools by emphasizing navigation paths and per-path session counts.

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 when to use the tool: when you want common navigation paths and page sequences. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like rybbit_analyze_funnel or rybbit_list_sessions, nor does it state exclusions. Usage context is present but left implicit.

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