verify_handoff

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

The description discloses the key side effect — 'Sets status to verified' — which is important given readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is false. It also explains the validation behavior: confirming closeout existence and declaration validity. It does not contradict the 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 tight and well-structured: it states the purpose, lists the validation criteria, declares the effect, and gives usage timing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its side effect, and its orchestration position. It does not specify failure behavior or return values, but the purpose and workflow context are sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain app_id or dispatch_id beyond the general reference to a 'completed dispatch'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to provide format, scoping, or lookup guidance.

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 identifies the action ('verify'), the resource ('a completed dispatch's handoff'), and the exact checks performed ('checklist resolved, envelope clean, findings present'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like handoff_read and handoff_write through its orchestrator-side verification role.

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 explicit sequencing guidance: 'Run this before agent_clear releases the specialist for its next packet.' This is a clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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