heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses auto-expiration and explains what `invalidations` means, but it omits TTL behavior, failure modes, ownership requirements, and what happens when the claim is already invalid.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second explains the return payload. The description is dense but well-structured, with no obviously wasted sentences.

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, has an output schema, and the description covers its basic purpose and return meaning. Still, it lacks usage cadence, parameter sourcing, and key behavioral details that would help an agent call it correctly without additional context.

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 should compensate for the undocumented `claimId` parameter. It only implies that the claim must be active; it does not explain where `claimId` comes from, its format, or how to obtain one.

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 a specific verb and resource: keeping an active claim alive. It distinguishes the action from mere claim creation or release, but it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling heartbeat_worker.

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 implies when to use the tool by warning that claims auto-expire without heartbeats. However, it gives no explicit guidance on frequency, timing, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling such as heartbeat_worker.

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