classic_mac_heartbeat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a read operation and lists the returned fields, which is adequate but lacks details about potential side effects, failure modes, or performance characteristics. The term 'Read' implies non-destructiveness, but more explicit behavior (e.g., network dependency, real-time nature) would improve transparency.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second lists the return data. No extraneous words, perfect front-loading of the action and resource.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It omits error handling or usage notes, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter (target) with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, simply mentioning 'Classic Mac target' which echoes the resource description.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('heartbeat status of a Classic Mac target'), and lists specific return values (uptime, front app, free memory, bridge alive). This distinguishes it from siblings like classic_mac_ping which also checks aliveness but without the detailed state.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as classic_mac_ping or classic_mac_list_targets. No explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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