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, and it does disclose a meaningful failure mode: if the shared repository is unreachable it answers from a local copy and returns a different shape, { stale, items }. It still omits auth/permission needs, ordering, and any result-size or pagination behaviour, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource and returned fields, then the filter option, then the degradation caveat. Nothing is wasted and no sentence merely restates the name.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return fields and the stale-fallback shape adequately. The remaining gaps are the undocumented "info" enum value and the absence of ordering/pagination expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the filter is optional and that omitting it lists everything, which the schema does not say. However it advertises only waiting/done/declined while the enum also contains "info", leaving one accepted value unexplained and creating a risk the agent assumes "info" is unusable as a filter.

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 and resource ("List desk items") and even enumerates the returned fields (id, type, title, status, created), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate from near-neighbours such as handoff_inbox or handoff_read, which likely also surface items.

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 only implies usage through the optional status filter ("optionally only those waiting, done or declined"); it never says when to prefer this over handoff_inbox, handoff_read or handoff_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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