handoff_evidence

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the transfer action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or state changes. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The [OPERATOR] prefix is concise and informative, and every word earns its place.

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 tool has five required parameters and no output schema. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description omits operational details like approval prerequisites, permission requirements, or what happens after transfer, leaving the overall context only partially complete.

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%, and each parameter has a description. The description adds a contextual hint about the typical flow (researcher to analyst) but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves, which is acceptable given the schema richness.

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 states a specific verb ('Transfer'), a clear object ('approved evidence'), and the direction ('from researcher to analyst'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like submit_evidence or review_evidence. The [OPERATOR] prefix adds further context for usage.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_evidence or get_evidence. The description implies the transfer happens after approval but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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