Generate Agent Handoff

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with the description's 'generate' action (likely a safe, read-only computation). The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as side effects or authentication needs. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description neither contradicts nor significantly enhances transparency.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and output structure without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action. While concise, it could be slightly more structured, but it effectively communicates the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and four optional parameters, the description should elaborate on the return value to aid an AI agent. It vaguely mentions 'ordered tool usage, fallback paths, and success conditions' but does not specify the format or contents of the handoff bundle. Thus, the description is incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 all four parameters (code, goal, address, contractPath) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not provide additional semantic meaning for the parameters, only describing the output structure. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 specifies the tool generates a 'step-by-step GenLayer handoff bundle for weaker agents', including ordered tool usage, fallback paths, and success conditions. This clearly states the verb and resource, and the mention of handoff for weaker agents provides some distinction from sibling planning tools like genlayer_plan_contract_workflow, though the differentiation is not fully explicit.

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 when a handoff bundle for weaker agents is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but lacks sufficient direction for an AI agent to confidently choose this tool over similar ones.

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