Get a heartbeat run

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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 concise with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could include more contextual information without becoming overly verbose.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain what a heartbeat run is or how it fits into the system. While an output schema exists, the description lacks context that would help an agent understand the tool's role among many sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the runId parameter beyond its name, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. Given low schema coverage, more compensation was needed.

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 'Get a heartbeat run', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id_issues by focusing on the run itself, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the list tool pc_get_companies_by_company_id_heartbeat_runs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with related tools such as the list heartbeat runs tool.

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