rybbit_get_journeys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to explain how journeys are computed, what counts as a 'page navigation path,' whether results are paginated, or the meaning of 'most common' (e.g., frequency threshold). Only a high-level function is stated, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not clarify the relationship between parameters (e.g., how 'filters' and 'stepFilters' interact), expected return shape, or business context (e.g., does 'journeys' imply a sequence of page views within a session?). The agent would need to guess at important usage details.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema, such as implying that 'limit' and 'steps' control journey characteristics, but it doesn't provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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's function: retrieving the most common page navigation paths (user journeys) within sessions. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('journeys'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rybbit_get_sessions' or 'rybbit_get_funnels' by focusing on navigation paths, though it doesn't explicitly contrast those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, offering no explicit decision criteria for an AI agent.

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