Use Handle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: unknown handles return a tool execution error. But it does not describe success behavior, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. This is minimal transparency beyond the error condition.

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, compact sentence that states the essential dependency on create_handle and the error behavior for unknown handles. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 an output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description fails to convey the tool's actual operation or purpose. It does not explain what 'uses a handle' accomplishes, making the tool's functionality incomplete for an agent trying to select and invoke it correctly. The error condition is noted, but the success path and overall behavior are absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the handle parameter's origin ('returned by create_handle') but adds no additional meaning to 'query' beyond the schema's 'Probe query.' It does not compensate for or enhance the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states it 'Uses a handle returned by create_handle,' which identifies the tool as the counterpart to create_handle and distinguishes it by its dependency on a prior handle. However, the verb 'uses' is vague—it does not specify what action is performed with the handle or what output is produced, leaving the core purpose unclear.

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 that the tool should be used after create_handle, since it requires a handle returned by that tool. It also warns that unknown handles error, which guides the user to provide a valid handle. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of other siblings (e.g., search, fetch) or specify exclusions.

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