federation_heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: a stale response means the task has already been reassigned. However, it omits lease duration, heartbeat cadence, and what happens if heartbeats stop, leaving meaningful gaps for a stateful operation.

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?

Two terse fragments with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the stale condition is appended as a useful caveat. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 three-string heartbeat with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essence (what it does, what stale means). It is adequate but leaves renewal semantics and failure modes unstated.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it only repeats the parameter names in parentheses without explaining what task_id, worker_id, or claim_token represent. The claim_token is implicitly framed as a lease claim, which is a small gain, but per-parameter meaning is essentially absent.

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 names a specific verb (продлевает/extends) and resource (lease роль-таска), and lists the three identifiers involved, so an agent can distinguish it from federation_claim, federation_submit, and federation_poll. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself against 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?

"пока играет роль" (while playing the role) implies the tool is called repeatedly during task execution, giving implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer the timing.

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