handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the state vocabulary (working/failed/open/blocked), which the schema does not encode as an enum, but says nothing about persistence, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on repeat calls — meaningful gaps for a recording/mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the lane_code prerequisite last. Dense but every clause adds information; no filler.

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 an 8-required-parameter recording tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual fields reasonably but omits several parameter meanings and any behavioral/safety context. It is minimally adequate, not complete.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain tried/decided/done/failed and the state values, but leaves 'by', 'summary', and 'pointer' completely unexplained, and 'detail' is only vaguely glossed as 'a pointer to detail'.

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: 'Record one rule-16 HANDOFF entry under a work lane', with the content shape spelled out. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like list_lanes or status, though it does not name any sibling it competes with.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite — use the lane_code obtained from list_lanes — which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never says when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions.

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