sage_pipe_result

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-journaling as a memory (summary only), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens if the pipe_id is invalid. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and include a key behavioral note. No filler or repetition.

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 simplicity (two string parameters, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and side effects. However, it lacks guidance on the pipeline workflow sequence (e.g., must be called after claiming). Still, it is mostly complete for a straightforward tool.

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%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions of 'pipe_id' and 'result'. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Return results for a claimed pipeline work item.' It uses a specific verb (return) and resource (pipeline result), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sage_pipe' (which likely claims or initiates pipeline work) by focusing exclusively on returning results.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., a pipeline item must be claimed first via sage_pipe). The context is implied but not stated.

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