Read Paperclip heartbeat context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses key conditional behavior: inline Markdown when under the token threshold, otherwise only a NEW immutable snapshot path, and the scope limitation of all_fields=true. This materially helps an agent predict the response shape.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the endpoint and core behavior front-loaded before the usage guidance and all_fields caveat. No wasted words; every sentence contributes to selection or invocation.

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 description covers the two possible return behaviors and gives a concrete use case, which is sufficient given the simple schema and read-only annotations. It could be more complete by explaining what a snapshot path is or naming the alternative for larger context, but it is not critically incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents both id and all_fields. The description repeats the all_fields scope restriction but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch GET /api/issues/:id/heartbeat-context explicitly') and clarifies that it returns the smaller wake/execution context. This distinguishes it from siblings like paperclip_context or paperclip_raw by scope and intent.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when the smaller wake/execution context is what you want.' It does not name the specific alternative to use for larger context, so exclusions and when-not-to-use are only implied rather than stated.

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