task_handoff

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing what the generated handoff includes and explaining that its purpose is to let another party continue the work. It also confirms 'Read-only,' matching the annotation. It doesn't discuss side effects or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and output structure. The first sentence packs the purpose and content list; the second adds a crisp usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, the presence of readOnlyHint, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it names the output sections and the exact timing for use. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without needing further clarification.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input side with 100% coverage. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output content rather than parameter details, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Generate a compact handoff for the current Task Passport' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the exact sections the handoff contains (objective, constraints, write scope, next actions, verification, drift, audit summary). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by focusing on context transfer to another agent, not just status reporting.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: 'Call before switching contexts.' It also specifies the intended audience ('another chat, client, worktree, or agent'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like checkpoint or task_park, so it's not a full when/when-not guide.

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