cronping

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (ping_url, claim_token), the dead-man's-switch mechanism, and that no account is required. Missing details on success/failure responses but sufficient for understanding.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, 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 complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and return values. It could elaborate on return value structure, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to decide usage.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add information beyond schema; it only mentions the return values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 creates a 'Cronping heartbeat monitor (dead-man's-switch)', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_heartbeat_status' and 'ping_heartbeat' by focusing on creation.

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 clear context (agent loops, workers, cron jobs) and explains the alert behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The context strongly implies appropriate usage.

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

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

The description discloses the returned data (status, last ping time, ping count) and hints at real-time behavior via 'live status', but omits behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements beyond the claim_token, or whether repeated calls consume the token. Without annotations, these gaps reduce transparency.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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, the description does a reasonable job listing the key return fields, but it lacks structural details (e.g., data format, nesting) and error handling. With sibling tools in context, the description is nearly complete but could benefit from specifying the exact response shape.

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 50% (claim_token has a description in the schema, id does not). The description does not add any further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the coverage, but no extra value is added.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'live status of a Cronping check', and lists the specific status fields (up/down/new, last ping time, ping count), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_heartbeat and ping_heartbeat.

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 usage after creating or pinging a heartbeat, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings or provide alternative approaches. No exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it is given.

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

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the outcomes of each signal value (UP/DOWN, timer reset, alerting), but does not mention any potential side effects such as permission requirements or idempotency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides essential information. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's purpose: it explains what the tool does and the meaning of the signal parameter. No output schema is provided, but for a signaling tool, the expected response is implied. Sibling tools are appropriately covered by the purpose clarity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each signal value (e.g., 'marks it UP and resets the timer') beyond the schema's simple enum definition. It also clarifies that 'success' is the default.

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 verb 'send a heartbeat signal' and the resource 'Cronping check', distinguishing it from siblings create_heartbeat and get_heartbeat_status which create and read checks respectively.

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 explains the three signal values and their effects (success resets timer, start records duration, fail marks down and alerts), providing clear context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tools.

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