Event Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns distinct property keys/values with counts, providing output context beyond annotations. However, it omits performance or data freshness details, but annotations cover safety sufficiently.

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 that is front-loaded with purpose, containing no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing output fields), but it remains concise and clear.

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 tool's simplicity (get event properties) and the absence of an output schema, the description effectively conveys the return format. It lacks comparison to overlapping tools like rybbit_get_user_event_breakdown, but for a straightforward query, it is largely sufficient.

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% with all parameters documented descriptively. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond summarizing the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves property breakdowns for a specific custom event, specifying the output includes distinct keys, values, and counts. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like rybbit_get_event_names (lists event names) and rybbit_get_event_timeseries (timeseries data).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rybbit_get_user_event_breakdown. It implies usage for exploring event properties but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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