rybbit_get_live_visitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'currently active' means (e.g., the time window defined by the 'minutes' parameter) and does not mention the return format or any edge cases. The behavior is underspecified beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence of 10 words, efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, but it is slightly terse given that it omits useful context that could be included without bloating.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function but lacks details about the return value (e.g., whether it's just a number or includes a timestamp). The existing schema documents parameters, so the main gap is the absence of output/response expectations, which is moderate for a tool this simple.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions for siteId and minutes. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 given the high schema coverage.

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: getting the count of currently active visitors. It is specific about the resource (visitors) and the state (currently active), which distinguishes it from other get_* tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar tools like get_overview or get_sessions, so it misses the full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions prerequisites, exclusions, nor alternative tools. The only implied usage is for live visitor counts, but there is no explicit context or when-not-to-use information.

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