Generate an executive handoff brief for a session, summarizing goal, files touched, blocker, and next steps so another agent or operator can resume work.
Generate an executive handoff brief (goal, files, blocker, next steps) for a session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | latest | |
| source_harness | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the brief is persisted or ephemeral, whether generation is costly/slow, what auth or harness access is required, or whether output is deterministic. The one useful signal is that it synthesizes rather than fetches, which is inferable from 'Generate'.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and the artifact, then parenthetically enumerates the brief's sections. Zero filler and no restatement of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape is covered and need not be described. But for a tool with a required, entirely undefined parameter and no annotations, the description leaves critical invocation information missing.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'For a session' loosely implies session_id (whose 'latest' default lives only in the schema), but source_harness — a REQUIRED parameter — is given no meaning anywhere, leaving the agent unable to supply it correctly.
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') and a concrete artifact ('executive handoff brief') with its contents enumerated (goal, files, blocker, next steps) and its scope ('for a session'). This clearly separates it from the list/inspect/search siblings, which retrieve rather than synthesize. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
No statement of when to prefer this over inspect_session or list_recent_sessions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'For a session' is the only contextual hint, and it is too thin to count as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.