generate_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does reveal a conditional refusal and the output's intended ingestion format, but it does not say whether the tool returns the spec, writes files, or errors on refusal, so an agent is left guessing about side effects and response shape.

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?

One dense sentence contains the purpose, output consumer, and refusal behavior without filler. The parenthetical is compact, though the sentence could be split for easier scanning.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core contract but leaves the parameter mapping implicit and does not describe what a successful/refused call returns. Sibling differentiation is present through the artifact type but not named.

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 only parameter, 'name', has no schema description, and the description only indirectly ties it to 'the validated concept'. This gives a reasonable inference that name identifies the concept, but it does not explicitly define the expected value format or scope.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('OpenSpec MVP specifications'), and adds a concrete consumer ('coding harness') plus an exclusion condition ('refused for killed concepts'). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like generate_dossier, which produces a dossier rather than handoff specs.

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 clearly states the tool applies to 'validated concept' work and will refuse 'killed concepts', giving an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It does not name an alternative tool for killed concepts, but it still provides actionable selection context.

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