context_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that handoffs are PENDING until resolved, explains the AION_DELIVERY doorbell behavior, notes the URL never carries content, and states return values. It provides adequate behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: action+destination, state behavior, and delivery details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any fluff.

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?

While the description covers the main workflow (handoff, pending, delivery, return), it omits parameter explanations for segment, refs, and intent. Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), this gap reduces completeness for an agent acting without further guidance.

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%, and the description only implicitly clarifies the 'to' parameter by listing targets. No explanation for 'segment', 'refs', 'intent', or 'content' parameters, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 action ('Post a handoff') and the resource ('another tool's inbox'), with specific targets (cursor, claude-code, claude-desktop). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_log or context_search.

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 explains the behavior (pending state, delivery mechanism) but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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