tb_heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and mode, but does not mention what happens if the lease is not active, side effects of renewal, idempotency behavior, or error conditions. Key details like the effect of extend_seconds and expected_revision are absent.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it may be under-specified due to its brevity. It earns high marks for conciseness but not for completeness.

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 10 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly inadequate. It does not explain any operational context, such as when to renew, what values to provide for parameters, or any expected response. The description provides almost no value beyond the tool name.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the meaning of critical fields like expected_revision, claim_token, extend_seconds, or idempotency_key, leaving the agent to guess from names alone.

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 'Renew an active direct-v1 task attempt lease' clearly specifies the action (renew), the resource (task attempt lease), and the mode (direct-v1). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tb_claim (which creates leases) and tb_recover_claims (which handles failures).

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 the tool is used for renewing leases on active attempts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It lacks guidance on when a renewal is needed or how it relates to other lease operations.

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