(S)AGE

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a write operation ('creates an on-chain identity'), idempotent ('returns existing record if already registered'), and has an automatic invocation pattern. It doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or response format, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: three sentences that each earn their place by covering purpose, usage guidance, and idempotency. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) comes first.

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 (identity creation with two parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does well: it explains purpose, usage context, and idempotency. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but for a registration tool with good parameter coverage, this is reasonably complete.

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 fully documents both parameters (name and boot_bio). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no format examples, constraints, or usage tips). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Register this agent on the SAGE chain') and the resource ('creates an on-chain identity with name and optional bio'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by explaining its unique role in identity creation rather than backlog management, forgetting, listing, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('This is called automatically on first connection — you rarely need to call it manually') and when not to use it (since it's automatic). It also mentions idempotency, which helps users understand it's safe to call if unsure about registration status.

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