sage_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'compact depth-limited directory overview' implying read-only behavior and filtering, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 succinct sentence of 10 words communicates the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 should hint at return values or format, but it does not. The tool has three optional parameters, yet the description gives no guidance on defaults or behavior. It is too minimal to fully inform an agent's decision.

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 low (33%, only root has a description). The tool description adds no parameter explanations beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the gap or clarify depth and limit semantics.

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 provides a compact, depth-limited directory overview, contrasting with ls -R. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sage_glob or sage_grep, missing a chance to clarify its unique 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 phrase 'instead of ls -R noise' gives clear context on when to use—when a less verbose view is needed. But it offers no when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools, so it stops 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.