create_context_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is deliberately excluded (page bodies, logs, screenshots, repeated tool results, hidden reasoning), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the snapshot is stored or returned, or what it contains positively.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact usage rule and an omission list, all of which earn their place. No filler or repetition.

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?

Adequate for a one-parameter tool with no annotations, but with no output schema the description should say what the snapshot looks like or how the agent consumes it in a new Chat. That return-value gap leaves an agent without a clear next step after calling it.

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?

There is a single parameter, run_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies a run-scoped operation via 'durable run state', but never explains what run_id identifies or what form it takes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: compress durable run state into a small snapshot for continuing in a new Chat. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_run_status or resume_run, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is conceptual rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition: use once when a Chat becomes long or before a long background wait, including frequency guidance ('once'). It does not state when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead.

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