Handoff List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: 'Returns lightweight metadata without full conversation content' clarifies the output scope, and 'Opens interactive UI if supported' indicates a potential UI interaction. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the core function and additional behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key behavioral traits (lightweight metadata, UI interaction). However, it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from siblings to fully guide usage in context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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's purpose: 'List all saved handoffs with summaries.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('saved handoffs'), and scope ('all'), distinguishing it from siblings like handoff_load or handoff_save. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from handoff_stats, which might also list metadata, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Returns lightweight metadata without full conversation content,' which hints at its output but doesn't clarify when to choose it over siblings like handoff_load (which might retrieve full content) or handoff_stats (which could provide statistical summaries). No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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