openpanel_get_realtime_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the fixed 30-minute time window and the environment-based fallback for project_id. However, it omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, caching behavior, or whether the data is sampled.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a specific, valuable constraint about parameter optionality. 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?

Given the lack of output schema and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple read operation. It establishes the core functionality but leaves the 'site' parameter unexplained and provides no hints about the return value structure.

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%, creating a high burden for the description. While it explains project_id's optionality based on environment configuration, it completely fails to document what the 'site' parameter should contain (URL, domain, ID, etc.), leaving required parameter semantics undocumented.

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 action (Get), resource (real-time visitor statistics), and scope (last 30 minutes). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openpanel_get_unique_users or openpanel_get_overview_report, which also retrieve visitor metrics.

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 one usage guideline regarding project_id being optional when configured in the environment. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other OpenPanel analytics tools or what prerequisites exist beyond the optional parameter note.

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