handoff-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool adds two numbers and returns the sum, which accurately conveys the core behavior. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., handling of negative numbers or precision), but for a pure arithmetic function these are implicit and unlikely to lead to misuse.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently states the operation and the return value, making it easy to read and understand at a glance.

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 simple tool that adds two numbers and returns the sum, the description fully covers the operation, the required inputs (implicitly), and the output. There is no output schema, but the description explains the return value. No additional information is needed for an agent to call 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 description says 'two numbers' but does not explicitly refer to the parameter names 'a' and 'b' or specify which parameter corresponds to which operand. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description could add more clarity, but because addition is commutative, the lack of specific mapping is not a functional gap. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type declarations.

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 states a specific verb ('adds') and a clear resource ('two numbers') with an explicit result ('returns the sum'). It is immediately distinct from the sibling tools echo and server_time, which serve other purposes, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when to use the tool (whenever addition of two numbers is needed) and there is no competing tool for this operation. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but given the simplicity and lack of similar siblings, the usage context is clear without further guidance.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior—returning the input text to the caller—which is transparent and sufficient for a pure function. It does not mention side effects or return format, but none are necessary given the triviality.

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 a single sentence with zero filler. It places the action first and conveys the complete purpose immediately, achieving maximum conciseness without losing clarity.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. There are no hidden behaviors, complex inputs, or alternative paths, so the level of detail is completely adequate.

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 already describes the 'text' parameter as 'Text to echo back', and the description merely reiterates that it echoes the text. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Echoes' and the resource 'provided text', making the tool's function unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add' and 'server_time' by referring solely to text repetition.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but for a trivial echo operation the intended use is self-evident. The absence of exclusions or conditional criteria is not misleading, but no active guidance is provided.

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 no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a read (returns a value) and specifies the format and timezone, giving an agent enough confidence to invoke it without side-effect concerns. It omits details like clock accuracy or caching, but for a zero-parameter utility this is sufficient.

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?

A single, focused sentence that delivers the essential information (action, resource, format, timezone) without any filler. The key qualifiers (UTС) are included, and the sentence is front-loaded with the primary 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns, in what format, and from where. There is no missing behavioral or usage context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is the structured baseline. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 when schema coverage is perfect, which it is.

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 states the specific action 'Returns' a particular resource: the current server time, with format (ISO 8601) and timezone (UTC). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add' and 'echo'.

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?

While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the description makes it obvious when to use the tool: whenever the current server time is needed. No other sibling relates to time, so the context is clear without more guidance.

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