bloom_check_handoff

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

Without annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits, but it only states the high-level check. It does not disclose what the output indicates (e.g., boolean, string), whether it is idempotent, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a decision-making 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?

At one sentence, the description is very concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks supporting information that would justify its brevity.

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 existence of an output schema (content unknown) and no annotations, the description should at minimum indicate what the output represents or how to interpret results. The current text is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's complete behavior.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the purpose of 'model' or 'task_category' parameters. An agent cannot infer what values are appropriate or how they affect the check, severely limiting correct invocation.

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 verb 'check' and the context 'if model should hand off to Claude', which directly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'identify_handoff_triggers', which could be similar, preventing a higher score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'identify_handoff_triggers' or other evaluation tools. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct selection.

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