Get Real-time Visitors

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'real time' but does not clarify whether the count is unique visitors, sessions, or approximate, nor does it mention authentication or potential latency. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicit.

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 that directly states what the tool returns. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it optimally concise.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the return value ('number of visitors currently active'). It lacks explicit caveats like data freshness or aggregation, but for a straightforward count query, it is reasonably complete. A slight gap is the absence of any note on whether the count is global or page-specific, but the phrase 'on the website' implies site-wide.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and there is no parameter meaning to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('the number of visitors currently active on the website in real time'), which clearly defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_realtime_map' by focusing on the count rather than a map visualization.

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 retrieving current active visitor counts but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_realtime_map' or 'get_overview'. There are no stated exclusions or preferred contexts, so the usage guidance remains implicit.

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