herdr_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says it prompts an agent and collects a result. It doesn't disclose whether the operation blocks, how long it waits, what happens on timeout, whether the agent's lease is affected, or what 'receipt-bound settled result' means in practice. This is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it omits critical information, so it earns a 4 rather than 5 for being efficient but not complete.

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 has 8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from sufficient. It doesn't explain the receipt concept, result format, error conditions, or how the 'settled result' is obtained. An agent would lack critical context to call the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is only 38%, with descriptions only for target, message, and wait_status (deprecated). The controller parameters (controller_id, controller_lease_id, controller_fence_token) are not explained in the schema or the description, so the agent must infer their purpose. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 a clear action ('Prompt one active leased agent') and outcome ('collect the exact receipt-bound settled result'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the singular 'one' distinguishes it from batch operations like herdr_batch_handoff. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other single-agent tools such as herdr_relay or herdr_agent_wait, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'use for a single agent handoff requiring a receipt-bound result' or exclude batch cases. Siblings like herdr_batch_handoff and herdr_collect_handoffs exist, but the description doesn't point the agent to choose this tool based on any criteria.

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