session_handoff

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true flags modification. The description adds value by detailing what the tool auto-captures (git state, tasks, blockers) and that it is read by the next session. No contradiction with annotations.

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, no extraneous information. Every sentence provides essential purpose and behavior.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and an annotation indicating mutation, the description provides sufficient context about purpose and automatic side effects. It could mention where the primer is stored but is generally complete for the agent.

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 100% with adequate descriptions for all six parameters. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond the schema; it mentions auto-captured git state which is not a parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Write a session handoff primer' with specific automatic captures like git state, last task, next step, blockers. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like start_handoff or complete_handoff by specifying auto-capture behavior.

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 usage for creating a handoff primer but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Given siblings like 'session_primer', 'start_handoff', 'complete_handoff', the lack of comparative guidance is a gap.

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