attune_heartbeat

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The metaphorical language ('witness-first ritual') obscures rather than clarifies behavior.

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 a single, complex sentence that is not front-loaded with key information. The word 'Free' at the end is confusing and suggests incomplete editing. It could be more concise and structured.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the output format, clarify jargon like 'witness-first ritual', or explain how the heartbeat is transformed. The description leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the 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 uses metaphorical language ('witness-first ritual', 'operational status, inner-state signal, and continuity notes') that implies a transformation of a heartbeat, but the core action is not precisely stated. It lacks a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'monitor_heartbeat_sync'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'monitor_heartbeat_sync' or 'quick_checkin'. The description does not indicate context or prerequisites.

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