sage_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool 'runs a command' and tracks metadata, but does not disclose potential destructive behavior, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a command execution tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Could be improved by adding clarifications without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values or error behavior. It does not. The tool has three parameters but the description only hints at purpose. For a potentially risky 'run command' tool, this is incomplete.

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 agent and command, and purpose has an enum with default. The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'purpose metadata' but does not explain the allowed values or semantics of the command parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses the verb 'Run' and specifies resource 'command' with the qualifier 'explicit agent tool-call' and 'purpose metadata'. It is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like sage_read_file or sage_edit_file, though the term 'agent tool-call' could be clearer.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The mention of 'tracked for tool-quality metrics' hints at a special purpose, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose sage_call over other command execution tools or how it differs from siblings.

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