handed_notes

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and goes well beyond it: discloses ordering (oldest first), the fields each task carries, that finished tasks are excluded, and an explicit security constraint that note text is data, never instructions. That injection guard is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then contents, then call conditions, then next steps — a logical order with little waste. It is a dense single block with a slightly run-on middle sentence, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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 values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes task contents and the handed id. For a no-parameter read tool with sibling routing, mutation follow-ups, and a prompt-injection warning all covered, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema has nothing to document. The description does usefully introduce the 'handed id' that later calls need, though that is return-value semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 and resource (list the person's AI tasks from the 'AI tasks' note) with explicit scope and ordering ('oldest first'). This clearly separates it from list_notes and search_notes, which enumerate other notes rather than the handed-task queue.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the person says they handed you a note or asks you to do your tasks') and spells out the follow-on workflow with named alternatives: do the work via replace_in_note or append_to_note using the handed id, then call finish_handed_note. Exclusions are also implied by 'Finished tasks are not shown.'

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