list_handoffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it omits the default action-only view, the compact=true truncation default, and result ordering — so it does not clear the higher bar.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the actionable hint second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the essentials are covered. However it leaves the default result shape (action-only, truncated bodies) and the distinction from search_bus/list_replies_to_me to the agent's inference.

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%, so all seven parameters (limit clamping, status values, compact, category, agent slugs, include_notify) are already fully documented. The description's status='pending' example is a minor reinforcement of existing schema content rather than new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List handoffs') plus the filtering affordance, which is clear on its own. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_handoff, list_replies_to_me, or search_bus, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Offers one concrete usage hint ('Use status="pending" to see what needs attention'), which gives implied context. It never states when to use this over get_handoff (single item) or search_bus (free-text search), so the alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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