latest_handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey ordering behavior ('most recent') and scoping (others' or filtered by author), but it says nothing about empty-state behavior, errors, or whether the result is a single item versus a list. The presence of an output schema partially offsets the return-format gap.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core action and scoping are front-loaded, and the usage hint follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and the parameter's effect. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation; edge-case behavior is the only minor gap, which is acceptable given the low 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. It does: 'anyone's, or filter by author' meaningfully explains that the single 'author' parameter narrows results, and that omitting it returns anyone's most recent handoff. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare nullable string field in the schema.

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?

Declares a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('most recent handoff document'), clarifying scope via 'anyone's, or filter by author.' It identifies the handoff document as a distinct entity among the many memory tools, which separates it from generic get_memory/search_memory siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit, actionable context: 'Ideal first read when continuing someone's work.' This states when to use the tool clearly. However, it offers no when-not-to guidance and names no alternative tools for cases where the most recent handoff is not what's wanted (e.g., list_recent, search_memory).

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