recall_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Load', which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, what happens if no handoff exists ('if any' is vague), or any side effects. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the lane and the 'if any' conditional. However, it could be slightly more complete by describing what a handoff is or what the return value represents, but this is not critical given the simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none.

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 the tool's purpose: to load the latest handoff for the current session's lane, specifically 'app@detached'. It uses a specific verb ('load') and resource ('handoff') with a precise scope, distinguishing it from siblings like write_handoff and memory_recall.

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 when to use the tool (to retrieve the latest handoff for this session's lane) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like memory_recall or write_handoff. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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