Get Heartbeats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses default behavior (only most recent heartbeat), the maxHeartbeats cap, and the credential masking behavior ('read "***" unless includeSecrets is set'), including persistence context in the schema. This is sufficient for a read operation.

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 five sentences, mostly front-loaded with purpose and usage. There is some redundancy ('specific monitor' and 'one monitor', 'historical' used twice) that could be tightened, but each sentence contributes important information.

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 covers purpose, usage context, default behavior, parameter constraints, and security considerations. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The main gap is not explicitly distinguishing from sibling `listHeartbeats`, though the 'specific monitor' phrasing partially addresses this.

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 descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra value with operational guidance: 'By default returns only the most recent heartbeat; set maxHeartbeats (up to 100) for historical analysis' and the recommendation to keep maxHeartbeats ≤10 unless requested, which goes beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieves' and the resource 'historical heartbeat data for a specific monitor', with parenthetical detail on response times and status changes. It distinguishes from sibling `listHeartbeats` by emphasizing 'specific monitor' and 'one monitor'.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: 'Use this for analyzing patterns or history for one monitor.' It also gives an explicit constraint on parameter usage ('Keep maxHeartbeats ≤10 unless user requests more'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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