handoff_list_available

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the non-obvious side effect (expiring leases before listing) plus the 'metadata-only until claimed' constraint, which an agent would not infer from the name. It omits permission/auth requirements and any note on whether lease expiration is destructive or affects other callers.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the side effect and the action, with no filler. The semicolon clause packs scope, pagination, and the metadata-only caveat efficiently, though it is a lot compressed into one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. The description covers the key behavioral facts (lease expiration, eligibility scoping, pagination, metadata-only pre-claim state) needed to call it correctly; only auth/permission expectations are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit/cursor/agent_id/project_root/timeout_seconds are already fully documented; the description only reinforces 'paginated' and caller-scoped visibility. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list) and resource (OPEN handoffs) plus a scope qualifier ('visible+eligible to the caller'), which separates it from handoff_get/handoff_claim. It also names a side effect ('Expire leases'), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling list/claim tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'visible+eligible to the caller' and the paginated metadata-only framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus handoff_get or handoff_claim, and no stated preconditions. The long-poll semantics are left to the schema.

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