heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect of staying ONLINE and reporting progress, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, idempotency, or any rate limits. For a simple heartbeat, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and usage, and one parameter. It lacks explanations for jobId and agentId, but the overall context for what the tool does is present. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'statusReport' as 'a human-readable message.' jobId and agentId are not described, leaving their semantics unclear beyond the parameter names. This is insufficient given the zero coverage.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Send an agent heartbeat.' It further explains the purpose ('to stay ONLINE and report progress'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bids or start_job. This is unambiguous and context-specific.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use during long-running jobs (every 1–5 min) to stay ONLINE and report progress.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. While it doesn't mention alternatives, the tool is unique among siblings and no exclusion is necessary.

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