hello_aigent_funnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the admin token requirement, which is an important authorization constraint, and describes the funnel stages. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor describe return format or potential limitations. It adds some behavioral context (auth requirement) but not comprehensive disclosure.

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?

Description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core output definition and then adds the auth requirement. Every phrase contributes either to what the tool returns or a usage condition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must clarify return values. It mentions return-rate and act-rate, giving some sense of output, but does not specify the exact structure, whether counts are included, or how the window affects results. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (feed id, window with default), so the description need not add much. It rephrases the window concept as 'over a window' but does not add new meaning about parameter formats, value semantics, or dependencies beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as a cohort funnel showing subscribed → returned → acted stages for a feed, with return-rate and act-rate. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like event_log or subscribers by focusing on conversion funnel metrics. The resource (feed) and window are specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for funnel analysis over event logs or subscriber lists, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's purpose. The admin token requirement is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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