(S)AGE

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'browse' but not explicit), pagination behavior (though offset/limit parameters exist in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides usage examples. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the main function. However, it could be slightly more comprehensive given the tool's complexity, but it efficiently communicates the essentials.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering examples but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, pagination, output format), usage distinctions from siblings, and deeper parameter context. For a memory-browsing tool with multiple filters and no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent with insufficient guidance to use it effectively.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema), which is high. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning domain, status, and tag filtering, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema defaults, or semantic nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Browse memories with filters' specifies the verb (browse) and resource (memories), and 'Use this to see what memories exist in a domain, with a specific status, or tagged with a label' elaborates on the filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., sage_recall, sage_remember, sage_timeline), which likely have different purposes related to memory operations.

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 provides some implied usage context by stating 'Use this to see what memories exist...' which suggests it's for viewing filtered lists of memories. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sage_recall for retrieving specific memories or sage_timeline for chronological views), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative clarity.

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