handoff_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the default is open handoffs, the scope is this project unless all_projects, and it covers handoffs addressed to any agent. It does not describe result shape or ordering, which is partly excused by the output schema.

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, zero filler, with the primary scope constraint front-loaded before the mine alternative. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies the defaults (open state, current project) that matter for correct invocation. Only result ordering/pagination behavior is unstated, a minor gap given the output schema.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the meaning of mine and the allowed state values. The description reinforces the mine/state defaults but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (handoffs) with explicit scope: this project, addressed to you or any agent. It also clarifies the default filter (open) and the alternate mode (mine), so an agent can tell what it returns. It stops short of explicitly naming the mutation siblings (handoff_create/take/done) it should not be confused with, but the read verb makes that distinction self-evident.

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?

"open ones unless state says otherwise" and "mine lists the ones you created instead" imply when the tool applies and how to flip behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or reference to the sibling tools (e.g. use handoff_take to claim one). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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