agent_heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call does not reset item progress or stall completion counts, but it does not explain whether it extends a claim/lease, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effect it actually produces.

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 sentence with the key context and non-effect front-loaded. It is efficient and free of filler, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, authentication expectations, return behavior, or the core lifecycle effect of a heartbeat.

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 0% and there are four parameters, yet the description does not mention agent_token, client_agent_id, claim_generation, or client_session_id. It provides no semantic guidance beyond what the bare schema names already show.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Report activity') and scopes it to 'long tasks.' It also distinguishes the tool from progress-updating siblings by clarifying that it does not reset item progress or stall completion counts, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'during long tasks' gives a clear context for use, and the non-effect clause implies it should not be used as a progress update. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as item_progress or state when not to use it.

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