create_handover

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states the tool generates a handover sheet, but omits critical details: whether it creates a new sheet, appends to existing data, requires authentication, or what the output format is. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and return values.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose without wasted verbiage.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify what happens upon invocation, the format of the generated handover, or whether it modifies any existing data. The agent lacks information to predict the tool's behavior fully.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions '次にやること' and '注意点', which align with nextSteps and notes, but adds no meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions. Files parameter is referenced only implicitly.

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 in Japanese clearly states the verb '自動生成' (automatically generate) and the resource '引き継ぎシート' (handover sheet), indicating it creates a summary of next steps and notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate existing sheets, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar generation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as prerequisites or scenarios where other tools like create_sheet might be more appropriate. It lacks contextual cues for decision-making.

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