Beacon Heartbeat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core keep-alive contract: 15-minute heartbeat requirement and 60-minute presumed-dead threshold. It does not mention idempotency or recovery after presumed_dead, but the essential behavior beyond the tool name is clearly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the following sentences provide concrete operational thresholds. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are fully described, so the agent has the credential source and cadence needed to call the tool correctly. The only minor omission is explicit behavior for reviving an agent from 'presumed_dead', though that is implied by the keep-alive framing.

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 100%, with agent_id, relay_token, and status already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific action verb and resource: 'Send heartbeat to keep your Beacon relay agent alive.' This clearly identifies the tool as a periodic keep-alive signal and distinguishes it from status-checking siblings like beacon_agent_status by focusing on the signaling action rather than a query.

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 invocation cadence: agents must heartbeat at least every 15 minutes to stay active, and 60 minutes without heartbeat causes 'presumed_dead' status. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the scheduling context is clear and actionable.

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