wwa_handoff_validate_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by listing what checks are performed (types, UUIDs, status values, protocol compliance) and mentions the strictness relative to verify. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it names the protocol version, lists the validation aspects, and contrasts with the verify tool. It could be more complete by describing the return/pass-fail behavior, but as a tool-invocation aid it gives sufficient context for an agent to select and use it.

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 covers the single parameter fully with 'The handoff document to validate' at 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds context about the protocol version and validation criteria, but does not explain the document structure or provide parameter-level syntax beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: full schema validation of a handoff document against a named protocol version. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool wwa_handoff_verify by explicitly noting it is stricter, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Stricter than verify' provides a clear comparison to a sibling tool, giving context for when this tool is more appropriate. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the alternative is named and the stricter scope is communicated.

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