ep_get_handshake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what is returned (full state with parties, presentations, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. While the tool is a read operation, the description lacks depth in behavioral context.

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 no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides usage guidance. 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?

The description includes the key components of the returned state (parties, presentations, binding, result) despite lacking an output schema. For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context. Minor gap: no indication of whether the handshake must be in a particular state, but overall adequate.

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% for the single parameter 'handshake_id', and the description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameter.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full state of a handshake', and specifies included components (parties, presentations, binding, result). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ep_verify_handshake' and 'ep_revoke_handshake' by focusing on retrieval of the full state.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check handshake progress or review completed exchanges', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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