(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 explains the tool's core function (storing persistent memories) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or how memories are organized. It mentions persistence but not storage limits or retrieval mechanisms.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds useful context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by defining the tool's use case and persistence benefit without redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, side effects) and does not explain return values or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 80%, providing good baseline documentation for parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the purpose of the 'content' parameter ('memory content to store') and implying context for 'type' through examples ('facts, observations, or inferences'), though it does not fully explain all parameters like 'confidence' or 'tags' beyond the schema.

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 ('Store a memory in SAGE') and the resource ('memory'), with explicit examples of what to store ('facts, observations, or inferences') and the persistence benefit ('persist across conversations'). It distinguishes from siblings like sage_forget (delete) and sage_recall (retrieve).

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 on when to use this tool ('to save facts, observations, or inferences that should persist across conversations'), which implicitly differentiates it from tools like sage_list (list memories) or sage_task (manage tasks). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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