moa_handoff_read

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 discloses the null return for unknown IDs and the fact that handoffs never participate in recall/indexing. While it does not explicitly state that reading has no side effects, the verb 'Read' and the distinction from consume/archive make this reasonably clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Each sentence adds unique value: the first describes what is read, and the second explains null behavior and the non-indexing property. There is no wasted text.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: reading a complete handoff, returning null for an unknown ID, and exclusion from recall/indexing. It could further detail the return structure, but the description is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'workspace' is the inbox scope but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's action (read) and resource (one complete handoff from the current project's inbox), including the context payload. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling handoff tools like send, inbox, consume, and archive, which have different purposes.

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 provides clear scope ('current project's inbox') and notes that returns null for unknown IDs, helping the agent know when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read vs consume/archive distinction is implied by the tool name and description.

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