handoff_read

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, the specific error for unauthorized app_id, and references the same packet-party check as dispatch_read, giving the agent safety and authorization behavior.

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, front-loaded with the main action, includes only essential context about usage and error behavior. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema or annotations, description covers return content (handoff.json + closeout.md), error condition, and usage context. Could detail the return structure further, but sufficient for tool selection.

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%, so description must compensate. It only clarifies app_id's party relationship via the error condition, but doesn't define dispatch_id or parameter meanings. The names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantics.

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?

Description states specific verb 'read' and resource 'handoff.json findings plus closeout.md narrative'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling dispatch_read by specifying it's for completed dispatch closeout and references verify_handoff context.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'orchestrator reads before verify_handoff' and 'successor agent reads to pick up the thread'. This implies when to use, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond the reference to dispatch_read.

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