knowl_handoff

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

The description discloses key behavior beyond the thin annotations (title and openWorldHint only): 'Delivered once, then archived - this is a pass, not a durable note.' This tells the agent the call has a one-shot side effect and gets archived, which materially affects tool choice. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't say what archiving entails or what response or confirmation follows.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then lifecycle disclosure, then sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant fact (one-shot, archived) is front-loaded.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus a fully-covered schema gives an agent the essentials: what it does, that it is transient, and where durable content belongs. The main gaps are the unacknowledged overlap with knowl_park and unspecified return behavior, which are minor for a pass-along tool.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 but does not elevate it.

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 states a specific action (parking the current workstream so the next session picks it up) with a clear resource and purpose, and distinguishes itself from knowl_store by framing handoff as a one-shot pass rather than a durable note. However, the very verb it uses, 'park,' collides with the sibling tool knowl_park, and the description never explains the difference, so it doesn't fully stand apart from all siblings.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'Store anything worth keeping with knowl_store,' implying this tool is for transient pass-along only. That is a clear context signal, but it doesn't address closely related siblings such as knowl_park, knowl_resume, or knowl_session_finish, leaving the when-not-to-use story incomplete.

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