sage_agentic_run

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the autonomy levels (suggest, ask, auto) and what each does, and mentions the return includes command result, recovery attempts, and verification status. It does not disclose potential side effects beyond running the command, but given the nature of the tool, this is adequate.

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, well-structured paragraph. It leads with the core action, then provides usage guidance, then explains autonomy, then expected output, and ends with exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return structure (result, recovery attempts, verification status). It also explains the three parameter options adequately. For a tool with three parameters and moderate complexity, this is nearly complete; a more detailed explanation of verification status could push it to 5.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the autonomy levels in context ('suggest reports fixes only, ask requires confirmation, auto may apply safe fixes and retry') and the role of max_retries, though the schema already captures the basics. Scores above baseline 3 due to useful elaboration.

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 it runs one local command with SAGE's failure-recovery loop. It specifies the verb 'run', the resource 'local command', and the unique feature 'failure-recovery loop', distinguishing it from siblings like sage_agentic_fix.

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 states when to use: 'development commands where automatic diagnosis and retry may help, such as tests or builds.' Also lists when not to use: 'Do not use for destructive commands, credential entry, production deploys, or external account changes.' This provides clear guidance for tool selection.

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