handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes a packet and that recall loads it, and notes token savings. However, it does not mention whether calling it repeatedly overwrites an existing packet, any persistence details, or prerequisites. This is moderate transparency but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, timing, and consequence. It is short, front-loaded, and contains no wasteful or repetitive language.

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 tool with a rich schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's role and its relationship to recall. It could optionally mention the memory isolation fields or overwrite behavior, but given the high schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 description itself contains no parameter information, but the input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions and enum definitions. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Write a structured handoff packet for the next agent session' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly connecting to 'recall' as the load counterpart, making its role unique.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this tool at the end of a session, or before you switch to a different agent' and explains that the next agent 'calls recall to load this packet', providing a clear usage scenario and naming the alternative tool. This leaves no doubt about when to use it.

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