sage_pipe_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals auto-journalling of a summary, but omits whether the operation is destructive, requires authorization, or returns any confirmation. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and providing essential details without waste. Every sentence serves a clear informative purpose.

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 and a complex pipeline workflow, the description lacks explanation of return values or error handling. It assumes agent knowledge of pipeline concepts. While it explains the key behaviors, it leaves gaps in the overall process context.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining that the result is sent back and that auto-journalling uses only a summary, implying payload size considerations. This goes beyond the schema's basic attribute descriptions.

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 returns results for a claimed pipeline work item, using specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like sage_pipe (likely for claiming) by explicitly stating it sends the result back and journals the exchange.

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 implies usage after claiming a pipeline work item, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like sage_forget or sage_inbox. No when-not-to conditions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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