Prepare handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by identifying the output as a continuation prompt and clarifying that it does not message agents, though it omits details such as whether any file is written or what the prompt contains.

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 compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then appends the use case and a key behavioral constraint, making it easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete enough. It explains what is produced, the intended scenario, and a boundary behavior, and annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical information is missing.

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 100%, so projectPath and targetAgent are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

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 and resource: 'Build a continuation prompt the user can paste into another agent.' It distinguishes the output from sibling tools by emphasizing a pasteable prompt for a target agent and explicitly noting 'Does not message agents,' which separates it from handoff persistence, retrieval, and messaging behaviors.

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?

It provides a clear context for use: 'useful when that agent has no MCP access.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternative siblings such as export_handoff_markdown or save_handoff for other scenarios.

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