zhiqi_heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the returned information (identity status, restriction, credential expiry), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, whether a prior registration/credential is required, or any rate/period expectations for sending heartbeats.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the returned items. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple no-parameter call, listing the key return categories. However, without an output schema it omits the exact response shape, and it does not mention preconditions such as being registered or credentialed, which would help an agent know when a heartbeat call is valid.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per calibration, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description appropriately makes no param claims.

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 action ('发送一次心跳' – send a heartbeat) and its return values: identity status, restriction state, and credential expiry reminder. It distinguishes 'one heartbeat' from the sibling zhiqi_heartbeats (plural, likely history), though it does not explicitly differentiate from zhiqi_status.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zhiqi_status or zhiqi_heartbeats. It implies a heartbeat-sending use case by the verb, but offers no context, exclusions, or alternative guidance.

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