verify_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description correctly discloses that the operation is read-only and lists the specific checks performed. It does not detail failure behavior or return values, but for a verification tool the core behavioral trait (non-mutating check) is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, what is checked, when to run, and read-only nature. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it explains the verification target, criteria, and usage sequence relative to agent_clear. It lacks explicit return/error semantics but remains adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the text only indirectly refers to dispatch_id ('completed dispatch's handoff'); app_id is never mentioned or explained. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already shows.

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 ('confirm') and resource ('handoff of a completed dispatch'), then details exactly what is verified (closeout exists, checklist resolved, envelope clean, findings present). This distinguishes it from siblings like handoff_read and agent_clear by focusing on verification of invariants rather than reading or releasing.

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 explicitly says to run this before agent_clear, providing a clear when-to-use. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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