(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. It mentions the tool searches memories by semantic similarity, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's function, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (search with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, error handling) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations. For a search tool without output schema, more context on return values would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (domain, min_confidence, query, top_k) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Search memories by semantic similarity.' This specifies the verb (search) and resource (memories) with the method (semantic similarity). It distinguishes from siblings like sage_list or sage_remember by focusing on search rather than listing or creating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., sage_reflect might also involve memory retrieval).

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 clear context: 'Use this to find relevant past knowledge before answering questions.' This gives a specific use case (pre-answer knowledge retrieval) that helps guide when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., sage_list for simple listing vs. semantic search).

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