transfer

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining crucial behavioral details: it accepts different URL formats, requires a password for share URLs, returns metadata (sha256), handles zip bundles by listing files, inlines text content up to a byte limit, and otherwise provides a curl command. This fully discloses what to expect, complementing the readOnlyHint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then compactly lists URL types, return metadata, and output behavior. No fluff or redundancy—every detail serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining returns. It covers all parameter behaviors, output variations, and fallback mechanisms, making the tool self-contained and easy to invoke correctly.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic clarity by explicitly tying password to share URLs/bare tokens and explaining how max_inline_bytes affects output, exceeding the schema's basic definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to receive a file from another agent via an 83blue transfer link. It specifies the verb 'receive' and the resource (file), and distinguishes itself from sibling sharing tools by focusing on consuming a shared link rather than creating one.

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?

It provides clear context by stating 'Use this when you have been given an 83blue transfer link and need the file.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but siblings are clearly sharing tools, making the usage intent unambiguous.

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

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the internal packaging: HANDOFF.md at the root of a zip, inclusion of files, and a single handoff URL. It also describes what the receiving model experiences (briefing, file manifest, download commands). Annotations already indicate external side effects, so the added specificity is useful.

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 solid paragraph that is fairly detailed but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes to explaining the mechanism and how to use the URL, though it could be trimmed slightly without loss.

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, the description fully explains the result: a handoff URL that the next agent fetches to receive briefing and download commands. It also covers the key parameters (files, transcript) in context, creating a complete mental model for the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description mostly restates that the transcript becomes HANDOFF.md and files are included, which the schema already says. It doesn't add substantial new parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's specific purpose: to hand a full working context to another model, packaging a transcript and files into a zip and returning a handoff URL. It explicitly mentions the key elements (instructions, conversation summary, task state) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that share files or text.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('to hand your full working context to another AI') and details the handoff flow, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. Since siblings are share_file/share_text, the usage context is reasonably clear.

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

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful behavioral context: multiple files are zipped server-side into one bundle, both text and base64 are accepted, and the result travels as a single capability URL. It does not discuss authentication or expiration behavior, but those are partially covered in the schema.

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 tight sentences front-load the trigger condition, then cover the two behavioral essentials (encoding support and zip behavior) and the most important alternative. The docs link is inline and unobtrusive; no word is wasted.

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 file-sharing tool with four well-documented parameters and annotations, the description plus schema covers trigger, payload encoding, bundle behavior, output as a capability URL, and the large-file alternative. No output schema exists, so the explicit mention of the URL result is valuable and sufficient.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the intended use of content_text versus content_base64 and explaining why bundle_name matters (multi-file zipping into one handoff). It does not deeply explain password or expires_days, but the schema already does that.

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 precise verb (share), a concrete resource (one or more files), and the target audience (another agent or person). It naturally separates from siblings like share_text and share_conversation by focusing on file bundles rather than text snippets or conversation histories.

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?

Explicitly opens with 'Use this when another AI agent... or a person needs access to one or more files' and then names the preferred alternative for large local files (HTTP API with link). This gives the agent a clear selection rule and an exclusion condition.

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

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

With annotations already indicating non-read-only behavior, the description adds valuable context: 'Uploads it as a downloadable file and returns a capability url (one GET fetches it) plus a share url and password. No account or API key needed.' This clarifies the operational behavior and authentication requirements beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict any 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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the use case and then describe the mechanism and return values. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return values (capability URL, share URL, password) and the core behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention expiration, but that is covered in the schema's parameter description for expires_days. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for all four parameters, providing full descriptions for content, filename, password, and expires_days. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: sharing text content with another agent or person by uploading it and returning a capability URL, share URL, and password. It uses specific verbs ('Uploads', 'returns') and distinguishes from siblings like share_file and share_conversation by focusing on text content you already have.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when another AI agent, chat session or person needs text you have'), providing clear context. It also notes 'No account or API key needed,' which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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