memory_handoff

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation but not destructive. The description adds that the handoff is visible to the next agent, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't reveal whether the handoff overwrites previous ones or how it integrates with other memory tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two crisp sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and mandatory usage. No wasted words; front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't explain how to craft an effective handoff or what happens to existing handoff data. For a tool marked 'ALWAYS call', more guidance on content and side effects is needed to ensure correct usage.

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%, and the description provides no information about the required fields (agent_name, summary, next_steps) or optional ones. The agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for a nested schema.

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 facilitates a formal handoff and emphasizes its mandatory use before leaving, making its purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'ALWAYS call before leaving' positioning distinguishes it from general memory write tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('ALWAYS call before leaving') and notes that the next agent sees it first, establishing priority. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so not a 5.

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