List Funnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it returns all saved funnels including step definitions, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or behavior for invalid or missing sites. With the annotations carrying much of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part earns its place: 'List', 'all saved funnels', 'for a site', and 'with their step definitions' all convey necessary information without 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns (all saved funnels with step definitions) and the scope (a site), which is sufficient for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers the return content.

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%: siteId is documented as 'Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier)' in the schema, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description only references 'a site' and adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('saved funnels'), and a scope ('for a site'), and adds 'with their step definitions' to clarify the payload. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rybbit_analyze_funnel, rybbit_get_funnel_step_sessions, and rybbit_create_funnel.

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 phrase 'List all saved funnels for a site' provides clear context for when to call this tool: when you need the full set of saved funnel definitions for a site. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intent is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the funnel-related siblings.

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