handoff

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that this is a claimable-work loop and that identity comes from the session, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects of claiming/completing, permission requirements, return behavior, or failure modes, leaving key behavior implicit.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The core loop is front-loaded and the preferred chaining workflow is stated succinctly, so every phrase earns its place.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits chain/tree semantics, return-value shape, most parameter meanings, and behavioral details an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly without guessing.

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 only 42%, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the operation verbs. Several parameters such as summary, handoffId, trailHash, nextIntent, requiredBadges, capabilityScope, and gardenSessionId are undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies the tool as a claimable-work loop for Handoff packets and names its core operations: offer, list, claim, claim_next, and complete. This is specific enough to suggest how it differs from siblings like work or wake, though chain and tree are omitted from the summary and only appear in the schema's op enum.

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 gives an explicit preferred workflow: list / claim_next → work → complete → claim_next, and explains the benefit of avoiding Slack or S3 boards. It provides clear when-to-use context, though it does not state when not to use the tool or compare directly with wake-related siblings.

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