get_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and it does disclose ordering ('newest first'), content ('full content'), the default limit, and the llm parameter's audit-log purpose. It stops short of describing edge cases or whether the call has side effects beyond audit logging, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the key use instruction appears immediately after the one-line purpose, followed by a tight parameter legend. Every line adds information, with no filler or redundant restatement of 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?

For a simple read-style tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger context ('resuming work'), the required parameter, the optional parameters, and ordering/default behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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 0%, yet the description compensates for all three parameters: project is identified as the project name, limit is documented with a default and ordering, and llm is explained as the agent name for the audit log. The project explanation is minimal and mostly restates the property title, so this is not a 5.

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 first line 'Newest handoff summaries for a project, with full content' clearly identifies the resource (project handoffs) and the scope (newest, full content), and it is readily distinguishable from memory/search siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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?

'Call this first when resuming work' is a direct, actionable usage instruction that tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not spell out when to prefer alternatives or what would disqualify this tool, but it provides clear contextual guidance.

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