Get tester journey

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

No annotations are present, and the description carries the burden well: it specifies oldest-first ordering, the exact engagement-trend values and their meaning, the device_id fallback precedence, and the `{ journey }` or 404 response contract. This is a comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a retrieval 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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the primary output, the trend classification, and the input/response contract. The most important scope information is front-loaded.

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 supplies the essential return contract: a journey with per-session metadata, insights, friction summary, praise, and an engagement-trend classification, plus the 404 error case. Together with the input behavior, it is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and know what to expect.

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 already documents game and device_id formats, and the description adds the important nuance that device_id tries a handle before a device id. The optional env parameter is not described in the description, but its pattern constraint is enough to invoke it safely.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Return one tester's full session-by-session timeline for a game.' It enumerates the per-session content and the engagement-trend classification, making it clearly distinct from single-session tools or summary tools.

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 intended use is implied by the content—one tester, all sessions, chronological—so an agent can infer this is for detailed per-session journeys rather than summaries or single sessions. However, the description never names alternatives (e.g., get_tester_summary or get_session) or gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule.

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