heartbeat_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the intended effect—recording liveness and preserving running state—but does not mention side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, error behavior, or whether it updates existing state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is compact and readable, though slightly too terse to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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?

With four required parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It conveys the general purpose but leaves parameter semantics and usage conditions unspecified.

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 0%, and the description names none of the four required parameters. An agent cannot determine what 'summary' means in a heartbeat context, what actor_role values are expected, or how run_id and actor_id relate to the operation.

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—'Record run liveness'—and adds a meaningful outcome: 'keep the assignment in a running lane.' It is clear about the resource and purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like checkpoint_run or record_run_binding.

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 phrase 'keep the assignment in a running lane' implies this tool is used to maintain an assignment's active/running status via repeated heartbeats. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude any sibling tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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