claim_heartbeat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., updating a timestamp), failure behaviors (e.g., what if claim is not active), or any permissions needed. The term 'heartbeat' is domain-specific and not explained, leaving behavioral traits ambiguous.

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, well-structured sentence that delivers the core purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to absorb.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only two parameters, the description leaves key domain context unexplained. An agent wouldn't know what 'heartbeat' means, when to refresh it versus other claim operations, or what the response represents. The description is minimal and does not provide enough information for correct invocation in a broader workflow.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It neither explains that claim_id identifies the specific claim nor that repository scopes the registry. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning about formats, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema field names.

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 action ('Refresh') and a specific resource ('one active claim heartbeat'), and notes the scope ('repository-global registry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'heartbeat' as opposed to acquire, extend, release, etc. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like claim_status or claim_extend_deadline.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen over claim_extend, claim_release, or claim_maintain_journal. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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