Export mission handoff

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is a compact Markdown briefing for another harness, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose what the briefing contains or whether any state is consumed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's action and output, and it avoids repeating schema or annotation information.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description plus schema and annotations is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of an output schema means the description should say more about what the briefing includes, and it does not explain when to choose this over sibling tools.

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%, and the schema already explains mission_id and project_id including the authorization note. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning or interaction details, so it does not improve on the schema.

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 action ('Return') and resource (a compact Markdown briefing for another harness), making the tool's export purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mission_status or delegate, but the intended audience and output format are specific enough.

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 phrase 'for another harness' implies the use case of handing off mission context to another agent, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. Some usage context is present, but it is mostly implicit.

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