Hand work to the next agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: 'With no refs given, everything this session touched is pinned.' This adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether the tool persists data, requires permissions, or has any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps for a write-oriented tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Write a handoff packet') and then elaborating with specifics. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or fluff.

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's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid high-level understanding: what the handoff packet contains and the default behavior when refs are omitted. It does not describe return values or side effects, but for a simple handoff tool this is a reasonable level of completeness.

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 only 33% (summary and to_agent have descriptions). The tool description compensates somewhat by referencing 'what was done, what is left, what is still unclear' and 'exact record versions,' which map to summary, next_steps, open_questions, and refs. However, it does not directly explain each parameter's syntax or constraints, and the mapping is implicit rather than explicit.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('handoff packet'), and enumerates the packet's contents: what was done, what is left, what is unclear, and exact record versions. This distinguishes it from sibling memory/recall tools, which focus on past interactions rather than forward-looking handoff.

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 gives clear context: it is for writing a handoff packet for the next agent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'next agent' framing makes the intended use case unambiguous. A 5 would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance, which is absent.

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