task_handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and 'Read-only' merely restates that. The enumeration of contents adds useful context about what the caller receives, and 'latest task checkpoint when available' discloses conditional availability, but no other behavioral traits (auth, rate limits, format, side effects) are covered.

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 core purpose and trigger are front-loaded in the first clause and closing sentence. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place by documenting the return payload; it could be tightened but is not redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the field list is valuable compensation for describing what is returned, and 'when available' flags conditionality. Minor gaps remain: no indication of output format (markdown vs JSON), size/truncation behavior, or whether it mutates any state given the absence of an explicit 'no side effects' statement beyond the annotation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure.

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 ('Generate a compact handoff') and resource ('Task Passport'), then enumerates the exact contents (objective, constraints, write scope, next actions, verification, drift, audit summary). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like checkpoint, resume, or task_status, which are not handoff generators.

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?

'Call before switching contexts' gives a concrete trigger condition. However, it does not name the competing alternatives (e.g., checkpoint, resume, task_switch) or say when NOT to use it, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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