立即心跳

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the write action to 'vitals', which implies mutation. But it does not disclose whether it overwrites or appends, any rate limits, or what happens on failure. It also doesn't describe the return format. For a simple side-effect tool, this is acceptable but incomplete.

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?

A single, concise sentence that leads with the core action and lists all collected data and the target. No extraneous information. Perfectly structured for agent consumption.

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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential facets: what it triggers, what it gathers, and where it writes. It lacks explicit return behavior, but since vitals are observable via sibling tools, this is a minor gap. Reasonably complete for its scope.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to document. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to explain.

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 states a specific action ('execute a heartbeat immediately') and lists the exact data collected (foreground window, idle seconds, clipboard changes, todo count) and the destination ('write to vitals'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like screen_capture or list_windows by naming the aggregated write operation.

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 it is for triggering a heartbeat on demand ('immediately execute'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like vitals_latest (which reads vitals) or todo_list. No guidance on when not to use it or preconditions. However, the intent to force an update is discernible.

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