bags_heartbeat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is read-only and free, which helps an agent understand safety and cost. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or the exact meaning of 'node status', but the read-only/free characterization is meaningful.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'Free read-only tier' clause adds valuable safety/cost context without bloating the text.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and names the key output components: node status and earnings/balance summary. There is no output schema, so exact field details are absent, but the description is likely sufficient for an agent to select and call this tool appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, and none is needed because the schema shows an empty object.

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 the tool as a periodic health check that combines node status with an earnings/balance summary. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which are a heartbeat. However, it lacks a direct verb like 'returns' or 'reports', making the action slightly implicit.

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 implies periodic usage but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as authentication, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like bags_get_partner_stats or bags_get_token_analytics.

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