handoff

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds useful detail that this records a completed handoff session and a broadcast. It does not explain the permanence of these records, authorization requirements, or the audience/effects of the broadcast, so it provides moderate but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the primary side effects. Every sentence adds useful information with no waste.

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?

The description is sufficient to understand the basic operation and its dual side effects. However, for a mutating handoff tool with no output schema, it does not describe what the broadcast entails, who receives it, or whether the handoff can be undone.

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 the schema already documents to_agent, summary, and context. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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: transferring work to another agent. It also clarifies that the action records a handoff session and a broadcast, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings such as broadcast, save_context, or resume_session.

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 intended use case is implied by 'Transfer work to another agent with full context,' giving the agent enough context to know this is for handing off work. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions or comparisons to alternatives like save_context or broadcast.

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