agent_handoff

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive hints). Description adds value by mentioning log persistence for traceability and the word 'Free'. No contradictions. However, does not detail side effects, permissions, or failure modes.

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?

Two concise sentences with a final 'Free.' No fluff, but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for key behaviors). Still efficient and 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?

Despite having 8 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. Does not explain what the handoff returns, how the receiving session behaves, or what 'Free' means. Inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning or guidance on parameter usage (e.g., when to set 'ritual_strip' vs 'response_profile'). No improvement over schema.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Transfer reasoning state'), the resource ('from one agent's session to another'), and provides a specific use case ('architect→builder→peer chains'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transfer_witness' and 'delegate_to_peer' by focusing on session-based 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('architect→builder→peer chains'), but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools. The hint is helpful but incomplete.

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