session_heartbeat

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

The description states the action (send heartbeat and return status) but provides no details on side effects, whether it is a read or mutation operation, potential impacts on the session, or error conditions. Without annotations, agent remains uninformed about behavioral traits.

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?

One sentence, very concise. However, it is overly brief, omitting important details that would require only a few more words. Strikes a balance between conciseness and completeness at a minimal level.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should compensate by explaining the return value (heartbeat status), possible states, or when a heartbeat is needed. It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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% with the 'venue' parameter described. The description adds 'specific venue session' but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers (venue name). Baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sends a heartbeat and returns status for a venue session. It identifies the specific verb ('send', 'return') and resource ('heartbeat status for a specific venue session'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_fix_sessions' or 'fix_session_issue'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios where heartbeat is needed, or when other session management tools are more appropriate.

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