generate_handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions capturing state but does not disclose whether the tool writes a file, updates context, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely persists a handoff artifact.

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, clear sentence that conveys the tool's function without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is relatively simple with three optional string parameters and an output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, the lack of behavior transparency (storage, side effects) and usage alternatives makes it feel incomplete for a tool designed to persist a handoff.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level context, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions for path, known_issues, and session_summary.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a session summary' with a specific verb and resource. It outlines the content ('what was done, what's next, and current project state') and the audience ('handoff to another AI'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_last_handoff and generate_project_brain.

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 implies usage at the end of a session by mentioning 'handoff to another AI,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_last_handoff or list_handoffs. It lacks exclusionary guidance or context for when not to use it.

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