List new handoffs for a consumer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the critical detail that the cursor is not advanced, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format or pagination.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words. Every element adds value.

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 read-only list operation with strong annotations and a simple schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and key constraint. It doesn't detail return format, but 'summaries' hints at the output, and no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0% in the description, but the description clarifies the 'consumer' parameter's role as the cursor owner and that results are summaries newer than that cursor. Other parameters (limit, project) remain self-explanatory from their schema definitions.

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 'list' with a clear resource ('summaries') and scope ('newer than a consumer's cursor'), and adds a distinguishing behavior ('without advancing it'). This effectively differentiates it from siblings like advance_cursor and read_handoff.

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 makes the use case evident: to view new summaries without mutating cursor state. It explicitly states the non-advancing behavior, which implies it should not be used when the intent is to advance the cursor, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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