evolve_research_handoff

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses atomicity, ownership requirements, and explicit rejection reasons: malformed, oversized, stale, replayed, or unowned submissions are refused and recorded as handoff telemetry. This directly informs an agent about failure modes and side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second delivers the critical constraints and failure behavior. Every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, ownership, atomicity, and rejection conditions, but it omits practical details an agent needs: the size bound for 'bounded digest', the expected content structure, and what the output schema response implies. Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required, but content requirements are still underspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds that 'pass_id' is parent-authorized and owned by the spawned researcher and that 'content' is a bounded digest. However, it does not explain the content format, size limits, or what 'bounded' concretely means, leaving gaps for an agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Submit one bounded digest for an assigned Evolve research pass.' It clearly identifies the operation and its scope, and the note about having no destination argument distinguishes it from routing-style tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear invocation context: only the spawned 'evolve_researcher' that owns the parent-authorized 'pass_id' can submit, and only once. It also implies this is the terminal handoff for a research pass. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the enforced ownership and atomicity give strong guidance.

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