Get Heartbeats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals NEWEST-FIRST ordering, the default of one heartbeat, the meaning of important:true (status changes only, not current state), and credential masking unless includeSecrets is set.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence contributes behavioral or usage guidance. Key caveats are front-loaded and the most critical warnings (important semantics, secrets) are clearly separated.

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 tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers all non-obvious behaviors: ordering, default count, result limits, important-mode semantics, and secret handling. Return values are not described because an output schema exists.

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?

Although the input schema already has full descriptions, the description adds meaningful beyond-schema context: default heartbeat behavior, a practical maxHeartbeats policy, the 'status changes only' trap for important, and the status-message-URL masking behavior for includeSecrets.

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 action ('Retrieves historical heartbeat data'), the resource ('heartbeat data'), and the scope ('for a specific monitor'), which distinguishes it from broad monitor-listing tools. The phrase 'for one monitor' reinforces its focused purpose.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for analyzing patterns or history for one monitor' and gives usage guardrails like 'Keep maxHeartbeats ≤10 unless user requests more.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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