handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('Deterministic — no LLM calls, no cost'), which is useful, but it does not describe side effects, required session context, or how the tool processes the session beyond generating a document. This partial disclosure is insufficient for a 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?

The description is exactly two sentences, both front-loaded with purpose and a notable trait. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain how parameters like anonymize or include_tools affect output, what the tool returns (file vs printed text), or any prerequisites such as an existing session. The deterministic note is helpful but does not cover the core operational details.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters (project, anonymize, include_tools). However, the description makes no mention of any parameters, neither explaining the documented ones nor filling gaps for the undocumented. It adds zero semantic value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'build' and the resource 'clean handoff document (markdown) from a Claude Code session', with clear intent ('so another assistant can continue the work'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_sessions, which lists sessions rather than generating documents.

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 usage for handoff scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_sessions or any alternatives. It provides context for its purpose but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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