Get Uptime Kuma Heartbeats

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are returned newest-first, with a lookback period and limit.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief argument summary, and a clear return/usage note. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses only a few purposeful lines.

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 read-only tool with straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (newest-first list with status/ping/msg/time) and gives practical query examples. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description repeats parameter names and ranges rather than adding deeper semantic context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 and resource: "Get recent heartbeats for a monitor," and lists the returned fields (status, ping, msg, time). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list monitors or get metrics.

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 explicit example queries that signal when to use it, such as "show recent checks for monitor 5" and "why was it down?". It lacks an explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools, but the use cases are clear enough.

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