Group By Path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that this is a thin wrapper over field_facets; it says nothing about return shape, default behavior (default query '*', default window '-1h'), result limits, or the facet_size cap of 300.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key noun front-loaded. It is structurally clean, though arguably too terse for a 5-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do heavy lifting but leaves most of the contract unspecified. An agent knows roughly what it returns grouped by, but not what it returns, how much, or what the parameters mean.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at 'query/time range' (query, window) and 'by path' (path_field). It adds no meaning for account, facet_size, path_field format, or the defaults that apply when nothing is passed.

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?

States a specific output (facet counts) and a specific grouping dimension (path) scoped to a query/time range, which distinguishes it from siblings like group_by_ip and group_by_user_agent. It also names the underlying tool (field_facets), so the agent can place it in the family without opening the schema.

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?

Calls itself a 'thin wrapper over field_facets', which weakly implies 'use field_facets if you need more than path grouping', but it never states when to choose this tool over field_facets, traffic_by_path, or group_by_ip. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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