handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description correctly carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool does not end the current session and explains fallback resolution via CLAUDE_SESSION_ID. It also clarifies that the output is a paste-ready markdown document, which is important for setting expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then use cases, then parameter resolution, then output behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and output format, and an output schema exists, so return values are handled. However, two parameters remain under-specified and there is no comparison with sibling tools like transfer_session. For a tool with no annotations and zero schema param descriptions, this is a noticeable completeness gap.

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%, so the description needed to compensate for all three parameters. It only explains session_id behavior; include_diffs and max_diff_lines are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults. An agent cannot tell what 'diffs' refers to or how max_diff_lines caps the output.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: packaging a session's state into a compact continuation document for a new session. It names a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'for starting a fresh session' distinguishes it from plain session retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like transfer_session, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: long sessions, expensive context, or user phrases like 'continue this in a new session.' It also explains how session_id resolution works, which is practical guidance. However, it does not mention when to avoid the tool or recommend an alternative sibling, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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