get_handoff

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It introduces the concepts of 'scoped', 'durable', and 'cross-skill learning', which describe the nature of the resource, but it does not disclose what happens on missing IDs, error handling, or the role of the optional database_name scope. The description adds some context beyond annotations but remains thin.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds meaning, particularly the qualifiers 'scoped', 'durable', and 'cross-skill'. There is no fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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 an output schema and clear annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not elaborate on the meaning of 'scoped' or how database_name factors in. The minimalism leaves some gaps for a new agent, especially with a schema that has an undocumented parameter.

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 50% (only handoff_id has a description). The tool description does not explain handoff_id beyond being an identifier or clarify what database_name does. The word 'scoped' vaguely hints at a scope concept, but it does not tie to the parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('handoff'), and includes scope qualifiers ('one', 'scoped', 'durable', 'cross-skill learning'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_handoff and resolve_handoff. It is unambiguous and focused.

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 implies usage: fetch a single handoff by identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_learning_candidates or resolve_handoff), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Read one' phrasing gives minimal guidance but lacks explicit direction.

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