post_handoff

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action of sending. It does not mention whether this is a persistent record, whether it requires authentication, whether it delivers asynchronously, or any side effects. The description offers only a restatement of the tool's name and intent, leaving the behavioral burden unmet.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and field structure. It is free of repetitive schema metadata and contains no idle words, making it efficient and easily readable.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only a minimal outline. It omits expected return values, error conditions, delivery semantics, and any relationship to other tools. For a tool of this complexity, the description is under-specified and leaves significant gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 11%, the description adds meaning by naming four key parameters (title, objective, acceptance, files) and framing them as components of a structured handoff. However, it leaves the remaining five parameters (from, room, context, priority, etc.) unexplained, and the schema itself only documents 'to'. The description partially compensates but is not comprehensive.

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 tool sends a structured task handoff with specific fields (title, objective, acceptance, files) to another agent. This distinguishes it from generic messaging tools like post_message or relay_tick, as it is explicitly structured and task-focused.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, target audience, or contrast with sibling tools like post_message or post_turn, so the agent receives no explicit decision-making support.

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