aiworkhub_task_codex_handoff_markdown

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful specifics: the underlying calls are the read-only review-queue plus show, there is no write-gate toggle or mutation parameter, and writes stay default-off regardless of input. Much of this is the same read-only claim restated in four sentences, which limits the value added.

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?

Front-loading is good — the read-only label and Markdown deliverable lead. But the read-only guarantee is asserted five times across the paragraph ('never a write command', 'FROZEN READ-ONLY CONTRACT', 'Never calls...', 'Never mutates...', 'Writes remain default-off'), which crowds out the parameter information that is actually missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotation covers safety. What is missing is parameter behavior for two undocumented, optional inputs. Everything else an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. Neither `task_ids` nor `batch_label` is explained — nothing says whether a null `task_ids` means all queued tasks, what `batch_label` is for, or how the two interact. The names are self-descriptive, but a caller cannot tell what passing values actually does.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: builds the B116 handoff report and renders it as compact Markdown. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aiworkhub_task_codex_handoff by naming it and describing the only difference (the added deterministic `markdown` field). An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (aiworkhub_task_codex_handoff) and the condition that selects this one: the caller wants a Markdown packet Codex can read 'instead of manually parsing the JSON'. That is a clear routing rule. No explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the read-only framing, so it stops short of the top score.

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