identify_handoff_triggers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as what constitutes a handoff trigger, whether the tool modifies state, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 very short (6 words), but it is not particularly informative. While it is concise, it lacks structure and does not front-load key details. It could be improved by expanding with context.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what handoff trigger patterns are, how they are returned, or how to interpret results. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the name; 'Identify handoff trigger patterns' is virtually a tautology of the tool name. Given the minimal added value, a 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 states the tool identifies handoff trigger patterns, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bloom_check_handoff' (which likely checks a handoff) by focusing on identifying patterns, but more clarity on the exact nature of patterns would improve it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'analyse_conversation_patterns' or 'bloom_check_handoff'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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