handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that a compact state is transferred and that the target must be an existing live session, but it does not state downstream effects such as whether the current session stops, whether the target must accept the handoff, or failure behavior.

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, with the main action front-loaded and the optional-parameter usage note immediately after. There is no filler or duplication beyond the small overlap with the schema.

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?

The description plus fully covered schema is enough to know what arguments to pass and that this is a handoff, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps about the lifecycle effect and result of the handoff. It is adequate for simple invocation but not fully self-contained.

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 parameter descriptions already document `to` and `reason`. The tool description only repeats the omit-to-select behavior and adds little semantic information beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a concrete action ('hand this work') and a specific target class ('another existing live agent'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like spawn_session or send_message. The instruction to omit `to` for auto-selection also clarifies the primary purpose in one line.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when work should be transferred to another live agent, and it explains how to fall back to auto-selection. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing live agent' wording implicitly rules out spawning or messaging tools.

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