Audit recent project handoff checkpoints, filter by status, and set a result limit to review session handoff history.
Audit recent handoff checkpoints for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about ordering, pagination (despite a limit param), what a checkpoint contains, or whether auditing mutates anything. 'Audit' implies read-only but this is not confirmed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste, but it is so terse that conciseness comes at the cost of the information the tool needs. Structure is fine; content is thin.
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?
Three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in either schema or description. The one-sentence description is inadequate for an agent to invoke this correctly.
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 mentions no parameters. The agent gets no meaning for limit (default? max?), status (what values are valid?), or project format. With three undocumented params the description fails to compensate.
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?
States a specific verb (audit) and resource (handoff checkpoints) with a clear modifier (recent, for a project). It is distinguishable from siblings like handoff_save and handoff_load, though the exact relationship to those isn't spelled out.
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 when-to-use guidance. It doesn't say when to prefer this over handoff_load, nor what 'recent' means, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer everything from the name and the one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.