Show a journey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by naming the exact structural problems it detects, but says nothing about failure behavior when the journey isn't found, how name_or_id is resolved, or whether the diagram is truncated for large flows.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary output type and then enumerates the secondary diagnostics. No filler, though one clause separating diagram content from problem reporting could improve scanability.

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 output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does reasonably well by naming the diagram format and defect categories. However, for a tool requiring platform + identifier across three platforms, the absence of any parameter or error-path context leaves it only adequate.

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 coverage is 67%, and the undocumented parameter is name_or_id — precisely the one that needs clarification (journey name vs. numeric ID, ambiguity handling). The description never references platform, workspace, or identifier resolution, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 concrete deliverable (a Mermaid diagram of a live journey/Canvas/flow) plus diagnostic content (dead ends, unreachable steps, empty message steps). This is specific enough to separate it from diagnostic siblings like what_breaks or launch_health, though the verb ('shows') is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over what_breaks, launch_health, or list_items, all of which plausibly overlap in diagnosing a journey. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned; the agent must infer usage purely from the output description.

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