handoff_to_terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the full session history is preserved, but omits what happens to the headless session (terminated or still live?), whether the terminal must be specified, and any permission or side-effect implications of a state transition.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the payoff. Little waste, though the second sentence is more justification than instruction.

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 3-parameter state-transition tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the handoff mechanics and the meaning of profile/terminal. It covers purpose and history continuity but leaves the agent guessing about everything else.

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 0% for all three parameters (session_id, profile, terminal), and the description adds no semantics for any of them. profile and terminal are entirely unexplained in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Reopen a headless session ... in a real terminal window,' and it ties the operation to the sibling tool ask_claude_code so the agent can place it in the workflow. It does not, however, distinguish itself from open_in_claude_code, which on name alone sounds like an overlapping handoff action.

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 phrase 'picks up exactly where the headless run left off' implies the trigger case (continuing an ask_claude_code session) but never states an explicit when-to-use rule or why an agent would choose this over open_in_claude_code. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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