List handoff summaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states side effects are limited to database reads, describes output fields, and notes failure mode returns empty list. It is transparent, though it could mention ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). It is concise with no extraneous words, and easily scannable.

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 tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, inputs, side effects, output, and failure modes adequately. It does not explain the output schema content in detail, but that is provided by the schema itself.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the three parameters (workspace filter, status filter, limit) but does not add new meaning or clarify usage beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose as retrieving handoff packets for a workspace or across workspaces, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like close_handoff_summary or record_handoff_summary, which would enhance distinguishing value.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: resuming a task, auditing pending work, or preparing context for another agent. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the provided context is clear and helpful.

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