rattus_heartbeat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate (~20 Hz) and duration, and that it uses an open serial port, but it does not explain potential side effects (e.g., robot motion from CMD_TWIST), error behavior, or the meaning of the velocity parameters. This is insufficient for a tool that may control hardware.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, rate, duration, and an important prerequisite. It contains no fluff, but the inclusion of 'Phase 2.7 soak / link-up' is somewhat cryptic and could be considered specialized. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded, though not perfectly structured.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details on the velocity parameters, expected return values, and broader workflow (e.g., needing serial_open first). The phrase 'Phase 2.7 soak / link-up' gives some context, but the tool is not fully described for an agent to invoke it safely.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (periodMs and durationMs have descriptions). The description adds meaning to durationMs explicitly ('for durationMs') and periodMs implicitly via '~20 Hz', but completely omits explanations for vMmS and omegaMradS, which are velocity-related and critical for understanding the tool's effect. The description does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 states the specific action 'Send CMD_TWIST heartbeats' and adds frequency '~20 Hz' and duration via 'durationMs'. It clearly conveys a distinct operation, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'rattus_send_twist', which may also send CMD_TWIST commands. The inclusion of 'Phase 2.7 soak / link-up' hints at the purpose but is not a full differentiation.

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 provides a clear context ('Phase 2.7 soak / link-up') and a prerequisite ('Uses open serial port'). However, it does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'rattus_send_twist' or mention exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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