rybbit_get_metric

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'gets' a breakdown, which is a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination (page/limit), date filtering (startDate/endDate), filtering (filters), or timezone handling. These are significant behavioral aspects that the agent would not know about from the description alone.

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 sentence, 13 words, and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too brief to fully orient the agent: it does not explain what 'metrics' are included, how the date-range parameters work together, how filters are structured, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent to guess important operational details.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small semantic layer by explaining that 'parameter' is the dimension to break down by and lists example values, but it does not elaborate on the other 9 parameters. No additional value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Get dimensional breakdown of metrics by a specific parameter' – a specific verb ('get') and resource ('metrics' broken down by a dimension). It lists concrete examples (browser, country, pathname), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like overview or live visitors. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar breakout tools like get_sessions or get_events, so it loses a point.

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 usage context is implied: the user chooses a 'parameter' to break down metrics by. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no 'use when' or 'instead of' language, and no mention of prerequisites like date range or site selection. The description relies on the reader to infer that this tool is for dimensional analysis.

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