Create Handle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the handle is 'short-lived' and 'explicit,' but does not explain what the handle is for, what it returns, any side effects, or lifecycle details. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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 action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about how the handle is used, its lifecycle, and its relationship to sibling tools like use_handle. This incomplete context could confuse agents.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'target' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond restating the purpose.

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 verb 'creates' and the resource 'explicit short-lived probe handle,' and it adds the specific purpose 'to test stateless multi-call tool design.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like use_handle, which presumably consumes the handle.

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 implies usage for testing stateless multi-call tool design but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like use_handle. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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