A2A Artifact Handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'selects and validates required deliverables' and 'returns either a portable package or actionable unmet requirements,' which gives meaningful behavioral insight. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the 'returns' wording suggests a non-mutating compile operation.

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 succinct, with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a concise behavioral summary. No filler or redundant phrases; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role and outcome.

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?

While the output schema exists and mitigates return-detail needs, the tool has no annotations and 0% top-level parameter coverage. The description gives a good high-level overview of validation and return behavior but lacks practical guidance on constructing inputs or using ttl_hours, and does not relate to sibling tools. This makes it adequate but incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only names the three input groups (source-output, receiver-contract, handoff-context) and points to the schema, without explaining how to construct these structures or what ttl_hours does. This provides minimal added value over the parameter names themselves.

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 begins with a specific action: 'Compile source-agent outputs into a receiver-ready handoff package,' identifying a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing selection, validation, and packaging, not inspection or artifact preparation.

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 the tool: when you have source-agent outputs that need to be validated and packaged for a receiver. However, it does not explicitly contrast with inspect_handoff or prepare_artifact or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key operations performed (hash recalculation, expiry check, contract satisfaction check) and what it returns (acceptance decision, next action). However, it doesn't disclose side effects—does inspecting mutate state or is it read-only? Is there a required precondition like an active run? These gaps matter given zero annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the second details behavioral specifics. Every phrase earns its place—no redundancy, no filler.

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?

An output schema exists but its content isn't shown, so we can't credit it for return value documentation. The description does explain the tool validates and returns an acceptance decision plus next action. However, for a tool with no annotations and a single run_id param, it doesn't address preconditions (does the run need to be active/finalized?), what happens on validation failure, or whether the operation is destructive—leaving meaningful gaps for an agent about to invoke it.

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% and there is only one parameter (run_id). The description references checks performed 'on a handoff package' and mentions contract satisfaction, which implies run_id locates the relevant run/package, but it doesn't explicitly explain what run_id must refer to or how it ties to the hashes/contracts being checked. With 0% coverage and a single param, the description could easily add more but partially compensates.

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 verb+resource ('Inspect a handoff package') and returns an acceptance decision, which clearly differentiates it from siblings compile_handoff and prepare_artifact. It clearly states the tool inspects rather than creates/compiles, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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 this is used when a handoff package needs validation ('recalculates deliverable hashes, checks expiry and contract satisfaction') which gives clear context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus compile_handoff or when not to use it. The usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that target_modes accepts a JSON list or an actual list, and that the result includes expiring URLs, SHA-256 hashes, a manifest, and a ZIP package. This is useful but does not cover potential side effects, permission requirements, or data retention implications. It is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences plus a line break. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds key details without filler. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and the main parameter nuance. It does not explain every parameter, but the defaults and names cover the rest. Overall, it is complete enough for effective tool selection and 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the non-obvious target_modes parameter in detail, but does not elaborate on content, filename, ttl_hours, or media_type. Those are largely self-explanatory from their names and defaults, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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's purpose: 'Prepare content for transfer to another agent or a human reviewer.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and while there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, the purpose is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool name.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for transferring content to another agent or a human reviewer. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the given context is sufficient for most cases, placing it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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