sassy_offline_handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the writing behavior, the mirroring, and the optional node start, but omits potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing state, reversibility) and any prerequisites. It covers the main actions but lacks deep transparency, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a detailed but relevant paragraph, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value and there is minimal fluff. Slightly verbose but well-structured, earning a 4.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior and parameters but lacks some context such as preconditions, what the 'exact launch line' represents, or how the persistent session affects usage. It is adequate but not exhaustive, hence a 3.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all four parameters: task, channel, next_steps (with format), and start_node (with conditional behavior). This exceeds the schema's minimal information and is essential for correct invocation, so a 5 is justified.

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: handing the current task to the local model and continuing work. It details the mechanics (writing to a brain key, mirroring to crosslink channel, returning a launch line, optionally starting a node) which makes it distinct from other sassy_* tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like sassy_memory_handoff, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 opening line 'Hand the current task to the local model and keep working' implies a usage scenario, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., sassy_session_start, sassy_offline_status). No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit, warranting a 3.

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