Get handoff

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only with openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact content of the handoff and the ordering guarantee ('decisions needed (most blocking first)', 'ordered next actions'), which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 one information-dense sentence followed by a short directive. It front-loads the core idea ('Exactly where to pick up') then enumerates the included content without repetition or filler.

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 an output schema present, the return structure does not need to be described in detail. The description covers the tool's purpose, content, ordering, and when to use it, while the input schema fully documents the single required parameter. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%: the single sessionId parameter is fully described as 'Session handle returned by start_session.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear: return a comprehensive handoff summary including state, decisions, checkpoints, ready/blocked units, completed work, context, repository state, and next actions. It is distinct from siblings like get_session or get_phase because it packages the full handoff picture, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 instruction 'Start DESK_MODE here' gives an explicit usage moment for this tool. It does not state exclusions or explicitly compare with get_session, get_work_graph, or get_session_report, but the context is clear enough for a capable agent.

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