chatwoot_get_live_grouped_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'real-time' and grouping scope; it does not describe time windows, data volume, or parameter interactions. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but also little behavioral context beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the three Args lines are compact. The output_format line is near-tautological and could be replaced with default/choice information, but overall the definition avoids unnecessary prose and stays focused.

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 output schema and read-only annotations, this is a serviceable skeleton for a read-only metrics tool. Gaps remain: no usage guidance, no parameter relationships, and no clarification of what 'metrics' or 'real-time' means in practice. It is adequate for a simple call, but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does usefully map group_by values to team_id/assignee_id and explains team_id as an optional filter. However, output_format is only described as 'Output format,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema enum, and the interaction between team_id and group_by=assignee_id is left unspecified.

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 first sentence identifies the action (returns), the object (real-time conversations), and the distinguishing grouping dimensions (team or agent). It clearly separates this from the ungrouped get_live_metrics sibling, though it does not explicitly name that alternative. This is clear and specific, but slightly short of a best-practice 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 instead of chatwoot_get_live_metrics, chatwoot_get_summary, or other metric-focused siblings. It does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or preferred contexts. The agent must infer applicability from the tool name and the first sentence alone.

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