handoff_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It signals this is a read and notes conditional fields ("if set"), but says nothing about the visibility gating described in the schema, permissions, or auth requirements. An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not needed.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the verb and resource, with the field list and doc pointer kept short. The trailing documentation link is mildly expendable but harmless.

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 read tool with a full output schema and complete parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. The only real gap is the absence of any behavioral note on visibility/access, which the schema partially covers.

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 all three parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that the read is by id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Read a handoff by id") and enumerates the fields returned (status, claimant, payload, result/rejected_reason), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like handoff_list_available. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 creator's path to the outcome" hints at context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternatives (e.g. handoff_list_available for discovery). Usage is only implied.

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