list_handoffs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the list semantics. It does not mention ordering, pagination, the default limit, whether results are filtered by recipient, or any side-effect expectations, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting usage and behavioral details.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter list tool this is close to adequate, but the absence of annotations, output schema, and any usage guidance leaves gaps in filtering behavior, result shape, and sibling-tool selection. A short phrase about when to use it or what the returned handoffs contain would make it complete.

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 coverage is only 50%: to_agent has a schema description, but limit only has a type and default. The tool description adds no parameter meaning, so the semantics of limit rely entirely on its name and default value.

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 states a clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('Grok ↔ Oz coordination handoffs'), and the plural verb distinguishes it from singular get_handoff or mutating write_handoff. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use list_handoffs rather than list_conversations, search, or get_handoff. The tool's purpose is implied only by its name and the verb, with no conditions or alternatives stated.

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