List Heartbeats

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals default behavior (only most recent heartbeat), maxHeartbeats limit (100) and a recommendation (≤5), plus critical security behavior where credentials are masked unless includeSecrets is enabled.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage context, then behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or padding.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, usage, defaults, limits, and security. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even differentiating from siblings via 'ALL monitors'.

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 valuable guidance beyond schema: recommends maxHeartbeats ≤5 unless user requests more, and explains includeSecrets' persistence implications in transcripts/logs, which the schema only hints at.

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 resource 'historical heartbeat data for ALL monitors', specifying scope (ALL) and data types (response times, status changes). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling getHeartbeats by emphasizing multi-monitor coverage.

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 explicit use case: 'Use this for analyzing patterns across multiple monitors or correlating events.' It lacks explicit exclusions or naming of alternatives like getHeartbeats for single monitors, but the 'ALL monitors' qualifier implies scope.

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