openpanel_get_paths_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm safety, disclose rate limits, describe the output format/structure, or explain what 'common navigation patterns' entails (e.g., does it return a graph, list, or tree?).

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but brief. Every sentence contributes information, though the second sentence only covers one of six parameters.

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 6 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits expected context for an analytics tool: output structure, how start_event/end_event interact with paths, and what 'max_steps' controls in the resulting report.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description must compensate significantly. It only adds semantics for project_id (optional if environment configured). It fails to explain critical parameters like start_event/end_event (likely path filters), max_steps, or date_range formats, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 'Get[s] user flow/paths analysis showing common navigation patterns'—a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling analytics tools like openpanel_get_funnel or openpanel_get_cohort_report.

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 note that 'project_id is optional if configured in environment' provides specific usage guidance for that parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to use this paths report versus other analytics tools (e.g., funnels vs. paths), or how to configure the filtering parameters.

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