memory_handoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals the output format (markdown) but says nothing about whether the card is persisted, whether an existing card for the project is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or how the result is returned — critical unknowns for a mutation-flavored tool.

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 compact clause with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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?

For a 1-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but sufficient to identify the action. It omits whether the card is saved to memory or returned inline and whether re-invocation overwrites prior cards, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'project' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., whether it must match an existing project name), so the baseline 3 is correct.

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: generates a project handoff card in markdown. The card concept distinguishes it from the memory_* siblings, though the description never explicitly names what it does not do. An agent can infer its role from the phrase 'handoff card', but sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

Provides a clear trigger condition: '切换到另一个 Agent 时' (when switching to another Agent) and the purpose of injecting context. However, it does not mention alternatives such as session_save or memory_context, which are plausible competing choices for carrying context across sessions.

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