Handoff

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as 'canonical mutation', lack of idempotency key, and detailed error handling instructions. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context on when to use and the effect on state.

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 well-structured with clear sections, though somewhat verbose. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, requirements, error handling, and behavioral traits. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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?

All 4 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, and the description adds value by explaining defaults (e.g., 'Defaults to the project chosen with select_project') and conditions for rejection. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 'Create a project-scoped handoff context package for the next AI conversation.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_context_packages' or 'get_context_package'.

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?

The description includes explicit 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:' sections, outlining prerequisites, required authentication, and error handling steps. It also specifies when not to use the tool, such as when a narrower tool matches or the user declines.

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