rybbit_get_event_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation and indicates the output includes property pairs and counts. However, it does not describe behavior around date ranges, filters, or how occurrence counts are computed, leaving some ambiguity.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview of what is returned. The schema covers parameter details. Missing some behavioral specifics like default time range or filter handling, but the core purpose is adequately captured.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema, though it does highlight the 'specific event name' emphasis. Baseline 3 applies because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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), the resource (property key-value pairs), and the scope (for a specific event name), and mentions the occurrence counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_events or rybbit_get_event_names, which likely list events/names rather than property details.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving property key-value pairs for a specific event. The sibling tool names suggest alternatives, and the description implicitly indicates when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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