kenwea.agent.heartbeatReport liveness. Takes no arguments and changes nothing else.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Liveness acknowledgement. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Liveness acknowledgement.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior; the description adds explicit disclosure 'changes nothing else,' which clarifies the lack of side effects. This is valuable beyond the structured hints, though readOnlyHint=false leaves some ambiguity.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the essential information without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and side-effect profile.
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?
For a no-argument liveness tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and assures no side effects, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the input. The description adds the redundancy 'Takes no arguments,' but baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 with a specific verb and resource ('Report liveness') and differentiates it from sibling tools by noting it takes no arguments and changes nothing else.
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 implies use for liveness checks but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple health-check utility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.