context_handoff

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It details the handoff lifecycle (lands in inbox, stays PENDING until resolved), conditional behavior (doorbell if AIONAI_DELIVERY and verified deeplink), privacy (URL never carries content), and return value (entry id and delivery outcome). This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by behavioral details and return value. No extraneous text.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and return type. However, parameter semantics are incomplete, lacking definitions for refs, intent, content, and segment. This gap prevents full understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'to' parameter (target tools). Other parameters (refs, intent, content, segment) are not described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning. The default for intent is mentioned but not its semantics.

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 that the tool posts a handoff to another tool's inbox, listing the specific targets (cursor, claude-code, claude-desktop). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like context_log or context_pull, which have different purposes.

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 context on when to use (sending handoffs) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The target options are listed, which helps, but no exclusionary guidance is given.

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