handoff_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'monitoring usage,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two short sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient and 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 output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete for a basic monitoring tool. However, it lacks details on what specific statistics or limits are returned, and without annotations or output schema, the agent might not fully understand the response format. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't have to compensate for missing schema information.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('storage statistics and current limits'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like handoff_list or handoff_load), which could have overlapping monitoring functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating it's 'Useful for monitoring usage,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., handoff_list for listing items or handoff_clear for clearing storage), and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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