handoff_capabilities

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: missing or empty sections are surfaced under `unreadable` rather than inferred, and `unedited: true` signals template placeholders. That is valuable edge-case and return-field disclosure an agent could not infer from the empty schema. It does not state read-only-ness, staleness/caching, or what happens if handoff.md is absent entirely.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then two sentences each dedicated to a distinct return-value caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every sentence changes how the agent would interpret the result.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of explaining what the response contains (three permission tiers, `unreadable`, `unedited`) and how to act on it. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter lookup; only the absent-file case and the freshness of the read are 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description instead spends its words on output semantics, which is the right trade-off.

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 resource (the user's handoff.md policy) and its content domain: what the agent may do alone, must ask first, and must never do. That is a clear verb-less but unambiguous purpose, distinguishable from siblings like handoff_read or handoff_status. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so 4 rather than 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 — an agent should consult this before acting autonomously — but the description never says when to call it (e.g., at session start, before any write action) nor when not to. It also doesn't name any of the seven sibling tools as an alternative for related lookups.

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