splithub_analytics_realtime

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful trait an agent needs — that data is scoped to a fixed 30-minute rolling window with a 5-minute active-visitor metric — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether an empty result means 'not tracking' versus 'no traffic'.

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 return payload is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the single usage tip — compact and waste-free. The metric list is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will get back.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to enumerate returned metrics, so the agent knows the response shape. It remains incomplete on the one input parameter's format and on the semantics of an empty/zero-activity response, both of which matter for a tracking-verification tool.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, 'property', whose expected form (numeric property ID vs. domain vs. display name) is never clarified. The description mentions 'analytics property' but adds no lookup or formatting guidance, leaving the agent to guess what string to pass.

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 states a specific resource and scope — 'who is on an analytics property right now' — and enumerates the returned metrics (activeVisitors5m, pageviews/events per minute over 30 minutes, top pages and sources). The 'right now' framing implicitly separates it from the historical siblings like splithub_analytics and splithub_analytics_funnel, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

One concrete use case is given ('confirm tracking works after a deploy'), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use it, nor any pointer to the non-realtime analytics siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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