handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the return contents and purpose, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, modifies state, requires permissions, or produces side effects. This lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for a tool without annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a parenthetical list of contents. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description does a good job covering what it returns and why. However, it could be slightly more complete by explaining how these components map to the handoff process or any prerequisites, but it is largely sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, giving 100% schema coverage. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when there are 0 params. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Return a handoff pack'), defines the resource contents (canon + frontiers + open loops + last checkpoint), and explains the purpose (resume context in a new session/agent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'context' by focusing on a structured pack for 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 provides a clear use case: 'to resume context in a new session/agent.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where other tools should be used, but the context is sufficient for initial selection. Since no exclusions are given, this fits a 4 rather than 5.

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