agent_handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that notes persist locally as JSON until resolved and that `read` returns only open notes, but says nothing about whether resolve deletes or merely flags notes, error handling, or concurrency behavior.

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 opening line is front-loaded and the Args block is compact, with no rambling. The trailing "Returns: JSON result." is filler since an output schema already exists, but it costs little.

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 multi-action tool with five params at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the actions, parameter roles, and persistence model adequately. Return-value detail is correctly omitted because an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the prose must document all five parameters, and it does: it defines `to` as a recipient agent/context name, gives `from_agent`'s default, and marks `message` and `note_id` as conditionally required per action. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 names a specific resource (handoff notes between agents) and enumerates the three distinct operations (write, read, resolve). No sibling tool overlaps with this capability, so an agent can identify it immediately from the name-plus-description pair.

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?

Each action value is glossed with its purpose: write to leave a note, read to fetch open notes addressed to `to`, resolve to close a note by id. This is clear per-action guidance, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to an alternative tool.

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