handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the launched agent runs asynchronously, what identifier or handle comes back, concurrency/budget limits, or how the injected summaries are merged. The schema mentions router/worker selection and isolation modes, but the description supplies none of that 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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though for an 8-parameter orchestration tool the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 8-parameter, 2-required orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a single sentence. Missing is any explanation of the handoff lifecycle, return value, or how from/handoff_from interact.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'resumen de otros agentes' loosely maps to handoff_from, but the description does not disambiguate the required 'from' array from the optional 'handoff_from' array, which are the two parameters most likely to confuse a caller.

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 and resource ('lanza un agente nuevo') plus the distinguishing mechanism ('con el resumen de otros agentes como contexto'). However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like run, run_many or continue, so an agent must infer which launch tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The only hint is the purpose statement itself, which is too thin to guide selection against run or continue.

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