handoff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that this is a write operation and explains the intended consumer (next agent via recall), plus a token-saving benefit. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting a previous handoff packet or persistence details, which would be useful for assessment.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every clause earns its place: usage timing, the relationship to recall, and the concrete token-saving benefit. No redundancy or fluff.

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 structured write tool with no output schema and full schema parameter coverage, the description provides enough context: it explains what the packet is, when to write it, how the next agent retrieves it, and the cost benefit. The return value is not critical for this type of tool, and the description covers the essential workflow.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the schema already documents each field. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Write') and identifies the resource ('structured handoff packet') and its purpose ('for the next agent session'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'recall' by noting that recall loads the packet, making the tool's role clear.

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 use the tool ('at the end of a session, or before you switch to a different agent') and explains the downstream workflow with 'recall', including the benefit of avoiding re-reading files. This gives clear context and implies the alternative (recall) for reading.

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