handoff_status

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

Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral transparency. It details the polling nature, return fields, and the condition to stop polling. It does not disclose potential errors like invalid job_id, but overall is transparent about typical behavior.

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 relatively concise, using a short paragraph and a bullet-like list for return fields. It front-loads the purpose and then details parameters and return. Could be slightly more structured but still efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the polling pattern, return fields, and parameter usage. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains job_id as from handoff_start and tail as lines of progress log. This provides context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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?

Description clearly states it polls a background handoff job for state, elapsed time, live progress, and result. It distinguishes from siblings like handoff_start by focusing on polling, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with handoff_jobs.

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?

Description instructs to call repeatedly until state != 'running' and specifies that job_id comes from handoff_start. It provides clear context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly list when not to use.

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