baton_pick_up

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral traits. While it says the tool 'Returns' state and history, which implies a read operation, the tool name 'pick_up' suggests it could also claim or modify the handoff state. The description does not clarify whether calling it consumes, locks, or otherwise changes the baton, leaving important 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 only two sentences, front-loads the operation with 'PICK UP THE BATON,' and includes both return content and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and when to call it, which is enough for basic use. However, it omits parameter semantics, does not clarify potential side effects, and, with no output schema, does not describe the shape of the returned state/history. These gaps leave the description minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 never mentions the optional 'project' parameter. The agent must infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. Since the parameter is optional and simple, this is less severe than a multi-parameter gap, but the description still fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 that the tool picks up the baton and returns the full current handoff state plus recent history, so the agent knows exactly what the resource and operation are. It also expresses the unique role of resuming where a previous agent stopped, which separates it from sibling status/history 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 gives a clear, actionable usage rule: 'Call this before doing any work if a baton might exist.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives.

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