heartbeat_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description aligns with '[READ][risk=low]' and adds significant behavioral context: the liveness logic based on changes, longest-stall detection, and the nuanced point that comms/quality can look fine while the upstream is dead. It also lists the return dict fields, adding transparency beyond annotations.

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 multi-sectional (overview, Args, Returns, Example) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section partially repeats schema property names. It is appropriately concise given the amount of useful detail, with no fluff.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the concept, input formats, return values, and provides an example. It also covers edge-case behavior (max_interval_s) and the reason for flatlining. Nothing essential is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains 'series' as 'heartbeat samples — scalars or {value, timestamp?} (a counter/toggle)' and 'max_interval_s' as 'max allowed gap between changes; exceeding it = not alive.' The example further clarifies usage, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb+resource: 'Is a heartbeat/watchdog tag still alive? (liveness check).' It defines the tool's unique scope (heartbeat/watchdog vs. siblings like tag_health or historian_health) and the core concept of change detection. This distinguishes it from other health tools.

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 provides useful context: a heartbeat must keep changing, and a flatlined one signals death even when other signals look fine. It implies when to use (for liveness of heartbeat series) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit exclusions.

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