handoff_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Show' and does not mention side effects (read-only nature), prerequisites (existence of .handoff'), error behavior, or output details. This is a minimal description that leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

For a simple status tool with one optional parameter, the description conveys the basic output (status, goal, next actions). However, it lacks details about the output format, how 'root' affects behavior, and how this tool relates to or differs from the sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more context.

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 a single 'root' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it. The parameter's name and default value (' . ') imply it is the project root, but no explicit semantics or usage guidance is provided.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource ('.handoff/') and content ('status, goal, and next actions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like handoff_save or handoff_doctor.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies an inspection use case but does not explicitly state when it should be preferred over handoff_recall or handoff_doctor.

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