(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 mentions grouping by time buckets, which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of grouped memories). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There is no wasted text.

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 complexity (retrieving and grouping memories), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but misses behavioral details like output format or error handling. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 100%, meaning all parameters (domain, from, to) are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how time buckets work or domain filtering specifics. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get memories in a time range, grouped by time buckets.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('memories'), and scope ('time range, grouped by time buckets'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like sage_list or sage_recall, which might also retrieve memories, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 some usage context: 'Use this to see memory activity over time.' This implies when to use the tool (for temporal analysis of memories), but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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