request_handoff

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

The description discloses that only the responsible person or creator can initiate the handoff, and that the target must respond. However, it does not mention side effects, timeouts, or error conditions. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, required follow-up, and a constraint. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary fluff.

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 description covers the basic operation and constraints, but lacks information about return values (no output schema), error handling, or what happens if the target agent does not respond. For a request tool, it is somewhat complete but could be enhanced.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (task_id, target_agent_id). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what the schema offers, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it requests task handoff and transfers to another agent, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like assign_task, which could cause confusion.

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?

It mentions the target agent needs to call accept_handoff or reject_handoff, hinting at the workflow. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as assign_task or other handoff methods.

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