graph_analytics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' revealing the non-mutating nature, and the GET method indicates a safe operation. It also explains the type of insight provided (user counts per node). However, it does not describe response structure, time range, or potential limitations, which would improve transparency further.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes the endpoint, and explains the business value. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: what it measures, how to interpret the insight, and the read-only nature. It lacks explicit return format details, but that is not mandatory given the tool's simplicity. The provided information covers the essential use case.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain graphId, but the endpoint /graphs/{graphId}/analytics and the tool name make it recoverable. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate but not exemplary. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, hence a 3.

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: analytics of scenario progression by nodes, showing how many users reached each node and where the funnel drops off. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_graph or list_graphs, which focus on graph structure or listing. The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint adds precision.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing funnel drop-off, giving clear context on when to use it. It explicitly marks the tool as read-only, which is a usage guideline for safe querying. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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