prepare_handover

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. It mentions the token is 'signed', hinting at a security property, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, token validity, or whether this operation is read-only or mutating. For a token-generation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's primary function without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the core function but omits details about the returned token's format, usage, or lifespan. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently in all scenarios.

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% (the only parameter sessionId is described as 'Session ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Generate') and the resource ('signed handover token'), including its purpose ('for session continuity across chats'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_session or resume_session, which are about session lifecycle rather than producing a continuity token.

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 the use case: when session continuity across chats is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It gives enough context to infer the purpose but lacks explicit guidance.

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