mint_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the URL is fetchable without auth and expires shortly, and explains the return values (command, projectDir). More detail on side effects (e.g., no destructive actions) would improve, but the provided info is adequate.

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 key info front-loaded ('PRIMARY handoff'). Every phrase earns its place, no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers return values and key behaviors (auth, expiry, optional local extraction). It lacks error handling or rate limit info, but for a 4-param tool this is sufficient.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that 'instructions' fills the command line and 'destDir' downloads/extracts and returns 'projectDir'. Only 'projectId' lacks additional context.

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 mints a handoff URL for Claude Code and returns a command. The verb 'mint_handoff' and context 'PRIMARY handoff' make the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'export_handoff', leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage context ('PRIMARY handoff') and explains when to use the optional 'destDir' parameter. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how to choose between siblings like 'export_handoff'.

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