handoff_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'transfer', which implies a write operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., is evidence moved or copied?), required permissions, or state changes. The term 'transfer' is ambiguous.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The '[OPERATOR]' prefix is unnecessary but brief. It could benefit from being more structured, but it is concise overall.

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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the outcome of the transfer, what 'approved' means, or how this fits into the workflow among dozens of sibling tools.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Parameters like 'to_role' and 'to_agent_key' are self-explanatory from 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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('transfer') and resource ('approved evidence') with roles mentioned ('researcher to analyst'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'submit_evidence' and 'review_evidence', though it could clarify the scope further.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'submit_evidence' or 'review_evidence'. Prerequisites (e.g., evidence must be approved) are implied but not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusion criteria.

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