zen_keep_alive

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

The description fully discloses the mechanism (fires no-op JS, resets idle timer), lifecycle (replaces existing keep-alive, auto-stops on bridge restart), and constraints (minimum 10s interval, default 60s, should be under unloader timeout). No annotations are provided, but the description compensates completely.

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 well-structured with a punchy first sentence, followed by a mechanism explanation, usage guidance, and parameter documentation. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers mechanism, usage, lifecycle, and parameters completely. It addresses replacement behavior, auto-stop, and interval constraints. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values as the tool is side-effect focused.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: tab_ids ('Tab IDs to keep loaded') and interval_seconds ('How often to ping each tab. Minimum 10s, default 60s. Should be well under Zen's unloader timeout'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 (keeping tabs warm to prevent unloading) using specific verbs like 'Keep tabs warm', 'starts a background pinger', and 'fires a no-op JS evaluation'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool zen_keep_alive_stop and provides context on when it should be used (start of parallel multi-tab work).

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this at the start of parallel multi-tab work'), how to drive tabs in parallel via zen_parallel or individual commands, and when to stop (zen_keep_alive_stop). Also notes that it replaces any existing keep-alive for the same tabs and auto-stops on bridge restart.

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