Load recent unfinished handoffs for a project, typically created by another client, so you can resume work from where it stopped.
Load recent unfinished handoffs for a project, normally from another client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| consumer | Yes | ||
| include_own | No | ||
| mark_resumed | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits the most consequential detail: the mark_resumed parameter implies loading can mutate state (claiming/resuming a handoff), yet the description describes only a read-like 'load'. It also doesn't say whether loading consumes the handoff, what happens on concurrent loads, or what is returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — for a five-parameter, unannotated tool it is under-specified, not efficient.
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?
With five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-capable flag (mark_resumed) left undisclosed, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this confidently. The cross-client framing is the only substantial context provided.
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% across five parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at 'project' and 'another client' (consumer). It says nothing about limit, include_own, or mark_resumed, leaving the majority of parameters semantically opaque.
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 ('Load'), resource ('handoffs'), and scope ('recent unfinished ... for a project'), which is enough to distinguish it from the write-oriented handoff_save and handoff_complete. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely related handoff_list, so the boundary between 'load' and 'list' is left to inference rather than stated.
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?
'Normally from another client' hints at the cross-client scenario but stops short of guidance: no statement of when to use handoff_load rather than handoff_list, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should not be used. An agent has to guess the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.