generate_handover_pack

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

With no annotations, the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It explains conditional behavior based on 'output_dir' and lists generated files. However, it omits details like permission requirements or potential side effects, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and uses efficient phrasing. It is concise but not overly terse; it could be slightly shorter by removing redundant phrases while retaining clarity.

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 one simple parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It explains both modes of output and lists all produced files, meeting completeness needs for this simple tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the lone parameter 'output_dir', including its effect on output routing. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't specify exact path format.

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 it generates a project handover pack, listing specific deliverables (handover.md, topology.svg, etc.). It uses the verb 'Generate' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_ets_group_addresses' which focus on single artifacts.

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 for project completion via 'as-built deliverable for commissioning', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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