heartbeat_lane

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that renewal is subject to a server-side lease ceiling, the response's lease_s may be shorter than requested, and older bus servers (pre-v1.3) omit lease_s entirely. It also mentions the 409 error condition and references get_bus_status for the current ceiling. This is comprehensive.

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 concise yet thorough. It starts with the core action, then covers error handling, lease ceiling behavior, and older server behavior in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and information-dense.

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 the tool's complexity (renewal with lease ceiling, response semantics, error handling), the description covers all necessary aspects. It explains the response's lease_s, references get_bus_status for configuration, and handles the 409 error. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It is complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies the lease_s parameter as the requested duration and explains that the response's lease_s is the effective granted duration. It does not explicitly define lane or owner, but they are implied from context (lane is the coordination lane, owner is the holder). The description adds meaningful interpretation for lease_s but could be more explicit about lane and owner.

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 the action: 'Renew the lease on a coordination lane you hold live.' It uses a specific verb (renew) and resource (coordination lane lease). It distinguishes from siblings like claim_lane and release_lane by focusing on renewal and mentioning the 409 error that tells you to re-claim instead of crashing.

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 implies when to use: when holding a live lane to extend its lease. It provides a specific condition: a 409 status indicates you need to re-claim (using claim_lane) rather than retrying the heartbeat. It also advises checking the response's lease_s rather than assuming the request was honored, which guides correct usage.

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