handoff_take

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the exclusive-take semantics ('Only one agent can take a handoff') and the 'open' state precondition, plus that the result is the full content. It omits what happens on conflict (error vs. silent failure), whether the handoff's state changes, and any authorization requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the exclusivity constraint front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and the single parameter is fully documented. The description covers purpose, precondition, and the key concurrency rule, leaving only edge-case behavior (already-taken, permissions) unaddressed.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by its id' merely restates the schema field and adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond it.

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 (take) and resource (handoff), scoped by id, and clarifies the ownership scope ('addressed to you or to any agent'). It does not name or contrast with siblings such as handoff_list or handoff_done, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: you need an id, presumably from handoff_list, and the handoff must be open. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of what to do if the handoff is already taken.

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