ddflow_heartbeat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core effect (renewing a lease) and the consequence of non-action (expiry and takeover), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose failure modes, idempotency, prerequisites, or what the response looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential what, when, and why. It omits potential edge cases like 'what if the lease already expired?', but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficient for the core calling scenario.

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 schema already covers the only parameter fully with 'Item id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking 'the item' to the id, but does not provide additional details such as format, scope, or required state of the item.

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 a specific operation ('Renew the lease on an item'), which is unambiguous and distinct from generic verbs. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling lease-related tools such as ddflow_claim or ddflow_release, but the action and resource are clear enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call periodically during long work'. It also explains the negative consequence of not calling (lease expiry and potential takeover by another agent), which helps the agent decide when to invoke it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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