handoff_note

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 discloses the output format ('Markdown, ready to paste'), the exact content sections, and the default behavior ('the newest session in this project'). It stops short of stating whether the operation is read-only or what permissions are needed, but for a note-generation tool the disclosure is strong.

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 dense but front-loads the core purpose and then lists the components of the note in a compact sequence. Every clause contributes information, though the long extended sentence could be structured with clearer delimiters for easier scanning.

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 two-parameter note-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the output format, the content, and the default session. It could be more complete by noting how the session ID is obtained or by distinguishing the tool from adjacent recap/status tools, but the essential information is present.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters, including the project folder default and the session ID-from-agents_now default. The description repeats the session default ('the newest session in this project') but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific deliverable: a hand-off note that lets another agent or session resume, and enumerates the exact contents (original ask, last request, evidence, files, test failures, plan, risks, last message). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like recap or check_my_work.

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 scenario is implied — 'so another agent (or a new session) can pick up where a session left off' — which gives an agent enough context to understand the intended use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as recap or check_my_work.

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