summarize_handoff

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the interesting burden and delivers: it discloses the stale-report behavior and the fallback to a fresh inspection-only report. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety hint, though return shape/pagination remain unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the conditional edge-case behavior. No filler; each clause 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (stale marking, inspection-only fallback) and the schema covers the two params. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify the 'stale' semantics that would appear in the returned report.

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 both params (format enum and repo_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the last verification report') and distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like run_relevant_checks and verify_task via 'without re-running checks.' It does not name an alternative sibling outright, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

'Without re-running checks' implies the use case (recovering a prior report rather than generating a new one), which hints at when to prefer this over run_relevant_checks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named.

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