Handoff To Agent

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

Annotations already establish it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds valuable context: it only creates handoff files and does not execute local agent commands. This is a key behavioral clarification beyond what annotations provide, preventing an agent from expecting side effects like running commands. It does not contradict annotations.

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, zero fluff. The first sentence states the core action and target, the second clarifies the scope limitation (no command execution). Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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 has 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, but it's a straightforward write operation. The description covers the purpose, target file, and a critical limitation. It doesn't explain the return value or error behavior, but for a file-creation tool this is typically obvious and not essential. One could argue it might mention that the plan should be comprehensive since the local agent will read it, but that's a minor omission.

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 input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight; the description doesn't enhance or clarify parameters beyond what is already structured.

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 specific verb ('Write'), a concrete resource ('.ai-bridge/current-plan.md'), and the intended audience (local agents like Codex, OpenCode, Pi). It clearly distinguishes this from generic write/edit tools by specifying the file and purpose, and even clarifies it does not execute commands. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 context is clear: use this to create a handoff plan for a local agent. It implies the primary use case without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. While it doesn't say 'use this instead of write when creating a handoff file,' the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to call it. A missing explicit 'when not to use' keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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