delimit_handoff_acknowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool acknowledges a receipt but does not disclose behavioral details like idempotency, failure modes (e.g., if receipt doesn't exist), or side effects. This is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second provides usage context.

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 simple acknowledgment tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context: when to use (start of session, pending receipts). It does not explain how to obtain receipt IDs, but that is likely covered by sibling tools like delimit_handoff_list.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline is 3 when schema documentation is complete.

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 tool acknowledges a handoff receipt before starting work. The verb 'acknowledge' and resource 'handoff receipt' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delimit_handoff_create and delimit_handoff_list by focusing on acknowledgment, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 advises to run this at the start of a session if there are pending handoff receipts, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient given the simple action.

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