heartbeat

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns a mini-anchor and can be forced via the 'force' parameter. Lacking details on side effects (e.g., state changes, error behavior) and the exact meaning of 're-anchoring' limits 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key detail (every 10 messages) without extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 simple utility tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could briefly mention the return format or prerequisites for completeness.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Periodic re-anchoring to prevent context drift - returns mini-anchor every 10 messages'. It specifies a verb (re-anchoring, returns) and resource (mini-anchor), and its role contrasts with sibling tools like 'get_anchor' which likely retrieves the current anchor.

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 indicates when to use the tool: periodically every 10 messages to prevent context drift. It implies this is a maintenance call during long sessions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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