memory_heartbeat

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains the conditions for each return type (e.g., memory nudge if no storage in 10+ minutes, stale-fact alerts every 3rd call, reflection prompt always). It also states 'Cheap and read-only' and 'No arguments.' No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details the returns, and the third gives usage frequency. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all three return types, their triggering conditions, and usage frequency. Fully addresses the tool's complexity.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns and under what conditions, which is meaningful beyond the empty schema.

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 identifies 'memory_heartbeat' as a 'Reflection check-in' that returns up to three distinct items: memory nudge, stale-fact alerts, and a reflection prompt. It uses specific verbs and resources, differentiating it from sibling tools like memory_verify and memory_forget.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call periodically during interactive sessions — roughly every 10 minutes or every 3rd user prompt.' Also notes 'No arguments. Cheap and read-only,' which helps the agent decide when to invoke it.

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