grove_heartbeat

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it requires grove_write and that a different identity requires grove_relay, which are useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explain what happens on broadcast (e.g., who sees it, any side effects beyond the broadcast itself). With annotations providing some base, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded: the purpose and prerequisite are in the first line, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 tool is simple with only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient for calling it. However, the app_id parameter is undocumented, which is a notable gap given the zero schema coverage. An agent may not know what to pass for app_id, reducing completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description only explains the 'sender' parameter (defaults to grove_sender, different identity requires grove_relay). The 'app_id' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a gap. This is a significant deficiency given the zero coverage.

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 tool broadcasts a heartbeat, a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, the purpose is clear enough to distinguish from other grove tools like grove_send_message or grove_ack.

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 this tool (to signal liveness) and mentions a prerequisite (requires grove_write) and a special case (different identity requires grove_relay). It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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