plan_two_arm_handoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and directly states the key side-effect boundary: 'never moves hardware.' This is valuable transparency for a tool in a family that includes write_device and emergency_stop. It doesn't describe output details, but an output schema is present, so that omission is acceptable.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words; the core purpose is front-loaded and the critical safety qualifier follows immediately. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 tool with two optional parameters and defaults, this description gives the essential purpose and non-mutation guarantee; an output schema covers return-value details. The only meaningful gap is lack of parameter explanations, but defaults minimize the risk of calling it wrong.

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% and the description never explains to_device or from_device or their defaults. 'Two-arm handoff' plus the self-explanatory parameter names add some context, but the description does not compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: it builds a dry-run plan for a two-arm object handoff, and adds a distinguishing safety qualifier ('never moves hardware') that separates it from sibling write/control tools. The purpose is not a tautology and is 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 description implies this tool is for planning a handoff without executing it, but it never explicitly states when to choose it over siblings like write_device or emergency_stop, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage context must be inferred from 'dry-run plan'.

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