herdr_collect_handoffs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'collect' but does not explain what happens to the receipts—whether they are removed, acknowledged, returned in the response, or if the operation is idempotent. It also omits any mention of side effects, required permissions, or the meaning of the controller tokens. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and the count constraint. It is efficiently worded, but given the complexity of the tool (7 parameters), the brevity may be under-specification rather than conciseness. However, it presents the key differentiator ('without submitting another prompt') clearly.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is profoundly incomplete. It does not explain what a handoff receipt is, what 'collecting' entails, what the response format is, or why controller tokens are required. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with full confidence based on the description and schema alone.

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%, yet the description provides virtually no parameter semantics. It implies the receipts array holds the items to collect (via the 'one to eight' range), but it does not explain the roles of controller_id, controller_lease_id, controller_fence_token, mode, read_lines, or timeout_ms. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text.

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 states the action ('collect') and the target resource ('pending handoff receipts') with a specific count range (one to eight) and a distinguishing nuance: it happens without submitting another prompt. This is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like herdr_handoff_receipt_list or herdr_batch_handoff, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The phrase 'without submitting another prompt' hints at a context, but it does not name alternatives or conditions that would select this tool over herdr_handoff_receipt_list or herdr_batch_handoff. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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