rybbit_get_session_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are 'aggregated' and include 'coordinates', which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention the role of date filters, whether data is returned in a specific format, or any other behavioral details that would aid an agent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to scan.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of 7 parameters, the description is minimal. It conveys the core output (locations with coordinates) but does not explain how the parameters shape the result, such as time aggregation or filtering. It is adequate for a straightforward read operation but lacks depth for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document each field. The description adds the context of 'aggregated' and 'map visualization', but does not elaborate on how parameters like startDate, endDate, or pastMinutes affect the aggregation. It meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('aggregated session locations with coordinates') with an explicit use case ('for map visualization'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_sessions and rybbit_get_live_visitors.

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 phrase 'for map visualization' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rybbit_get_live_visitors for current locations). No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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