(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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics (implying a read-only operation) and lists the types of data returned, but it doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time or cached. For a 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 highly concise and well-structured in a single sentence, front-loading the core action ('Get memory store statistics') followed by specific details. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying the scope and output, with no redundant or vague language.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the output semantics effectively, but without annotations, it lacks behavioral context like safety or performance traits. For a read-only statistical tool, this is minimally viable but could benefit from more completeness regarding usage constraints or data freshness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output semantics (e.g., 'total memories', 'counts by domain and status', 'last activity'), adding value beyond the schema by explaining what information is returned. This compensates well for the lack of an output 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Shows') and resources ('memory store statistics'), detailing what information is retrieved (total memories, counts by domain/status, last activity). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like sage_list or sage_timeline, but the focus on statistics rather than listing or timeline data provides implicit differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for statistical overviews, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like sage_list (which might list memories) or sage_timeline (which might show activity sequences).

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