get_active_visitors

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the real-time nature and that it returns a count, but does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Acceptable for a simple read operation.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a lightweight Args format. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word is informative with no 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the parameter source and the real-time aspect, though it could mention what the output looks like (though not required due to output schema).

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that website_id comes from get_websites, adding practical context beyond the bare schema. This is helpful for an agent to understand how to obtain the parameter value.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'number of visitors currently active on a website', and specifies 'real-time' which distinguishes it from other tools that may provide historical data. The name also aligns perfectly with the described action.

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?

Implies usage through the real-time context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide any exclusions. It does reference get_websites for obtaining the website_id, which is helpful but not a full guideline.

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