delimit_handoff_acknowledge

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states the action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the receipt is marked acknowledged), idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. The behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema, the description lacks important context: what happens if no pending receipts, whether receipt_id is required (though schema says optional), and how acknowledgment affects the system state. Incomplete for a handoff workflow.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Acknowledge' and resource 'handoff receipt', with context 'before starting work'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like handoff_create and handoff_list by focusing on acknowledgment of a receipt.

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 clear when-to-use instruction: 'Run this at the start of a session if there are pending handoff receipts.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the condition is sufficient.

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