handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it writes a packet and claims token savings, but does not mention whether it overwrites an existing handoff, storage behavior, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations since none are provided.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, then usage timing and benefit. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key context (what, when, why, and the recall workflow). Complete enough given the schema covers all parameters, though it doesn't mention overwriting or retention behavior explicitly.

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 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add extra detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not additive. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Write a structured handoff packet for the next agent session.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the purpose (session handoff) and referencing 'recall' as the counterpart that loads the packet.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'at the end of a session, or before you switch to a different agent.' It also explains the benefit and the relationship with 'recall.' However, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or contrast with other sibling tools like 'capture.'

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