task_handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read-only' and describes the output (objective, constraints, etc.), clearly indicating a non-destructive operation. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are implied.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence defines the tool's action and output, and the second provides usage advice and safety status. Every word adds value.

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 no parameters or output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool produces, when to use it, and its read-only nature. The domain concept 'Task Passport' might be assumed known, but within the tool suite it's 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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed as the tool takes no arguments.

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 generates a compact handoff for the current Task Passport, listing specific components (objective, constraints, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the dedicated handoff mechanism, especially highlighted by 'Call before switching contexts.'

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 advises 'Call before switching contexts,' providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly exclude when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is well-defined.

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