build_handoff_report

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

The description adds context about the report's contents but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description partially fills the gap but is insufficient.

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 sentence that conveys the core function efficiently. While it could be slightly restructured to highlight key points earlier, it is concise and readable.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential details about parameter semantics, return values, and usage context. It does not enable an agent to use the tool autonomously.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (chapter, project_dir, include_context). An agent would not know their meanings or how to use them correctly.

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 the tool's purpose: building a handoff report and next-agent brief, listing specific contents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_agent_activity_report and build_chapter_context, which cover different topics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context of use, or when not to use it among the many sibling build tools.

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