zhiqi_heartbeats

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

The description discloses two key behaviors: (1) the tool rejects days>7 client-side without sending a request, and (2) it uses cursor pagination and caching. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not detail the exact error message format or the response structure, but the disclosed rejection behavior and caching are valuable context beyond what the schema offers. This is strong for a read tool.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the key facts: the 7-day cap, cursor pagination, and cache. It then adds the client-side rejection detail and the sibling alternative. No waste; every clause provides actionable information.

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 read-only listing tool with simple parameters, the description covers the critical usage constraints, pagination method, and alternative routing. The absence of an output schema is acceptable since the description states it returns heartbeats and the schema defines parameters. The only theoretical gap is the exact response shape, but for a heartbeat listing, the tool name and sibling context are sufficient. The description is complete for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 67%, covering days and pageSize but not cursor. The description compensates by explaining the 7-day check and that days is hard-limited, and it mentions cursor pagination, which is not in the schema's cursor description. It clarifies pageSize's default and max via schema, but the description adds the client-side rejection logic, which is meaningful beyond the schema's '服务端硬限制'.

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 ('查询心跳明细') with a clear resource ('心跳明细'), and includes explicit constraints (7-day limit, cursor pagination, caching). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool zhiqi_survival_daily by stating when to use the alternative. This is a precise and helpful purpose statement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('心跳明细') and when not to ('存活台账请改用 zhiqi_survival_daily'). It clearly says the 7-day limit is a hard bound and that requests will be rejected locally. However, it does not explicitly mention all alternatives (e.g., zhiqi_heartbeat for individual heartbeats), but the context signals list siblings like zhiqi_heartbeat, which is implied.

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