handoff_packet

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and closed-world. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the packet is bounded by a token budget, tracks explicit omissions, and tells how to request omitted fields. No annotation contradiction.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler. The core object, scope, and noteworthy constraints are packed into a readable structure.

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?

Simple tool with one required parameter, yet no output schema and no return format details in the description. It explains the packet's contents but not how handoffId should be supplied or what failure cases look like; adequate but with gaps.

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 0% and the description never mentions the handoffId parameter, its type, or its role beyond the implied 'for a handoff'. With a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('bounded delivery packet for a handoff'), and the packet's content ('fields kept within the token budget plus explicit omissions and how to request them'). This clearly distinguishes it from creation and thread-list sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool rather than siblings such as get_thread_progress_summary or handoff_create. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing conditions; the description only states what the tool reads.

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