discover_critical_journeys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: 'Revenue and activation journeys are automatically flagged for release gating.' However, it does not mention auth requirements, persistence effects, or rate limits, which are particularly relevant for a crawling tool.

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 consists of two tight paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action ('Crawl app_url and plan 3-8 critical user journeys'), and the second explains the output value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must compensate by explaining parameters and operational behavior. It covers the return value and auto-flagging rule but omits parameter semantics, crawl boundaries, failure modes, and any side effects, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description only mentions app_url (in the first sentence). The other seven parameters (max_depth, max_pages, seed_urls, profile_name, business_goal, exclude_url_pattern, include_url_pattern) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and valid values.

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 crawls app_url and plans 3-8 critical user journeys in business language, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also indicates the output includes meaningful fields, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_journeys_for_release or navigate_to_journey.

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 a clear use case: 'so you can immediately scope which journeys gate a release.' It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the release-scoping context implies its intended role in the workflow.

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