Submission Hard Stops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a non-mutating query, and the phrase 'always require a manual handoff' clarifies that it does not perform the handoff itself. Still, it does not elaborate on behavior such as whether the list is static or context-dependent.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It delivers the core meaning immediately and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 nullary tool with an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It names the resource and the key concept (manual handoff), so an agent can decide whether to call it. Minor ambiguity about what 'manual handoff' encompasses is tolerable given the output schema likely clarifies the returned structure.

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 schema fully covers this by defining an empty object. A baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics for the description to add.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('conditions that always require a manual handoff'). It clearly explains what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like assess_submission.

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 intended use is implied: an agent would call this when it needs to know which conditions force a manual handoff. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions.

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