sage_backlog

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 discloses that only assigned open tasks are returned and excludes unassigned and other agents' tasks. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, whether it's read-only (though implied), rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function and scope, the second provides usage motivation. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what the tool does and returns) is front-loaded. No extraneous words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what fields or structure the returned tasks have. It does not. The description only says 'view open tasks' but does not specify what attributes (e.g., id, description, priority, created date) are included. For a tool with a simple input and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it and parse results.

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 one parameter 'domain' with a description: 'Filter by domain (omit for all domains)'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter's usage or format.

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 function: 'View open tasks explicitly assigned to this agent ID across domains.' It uses a specific verb ('View') and resource ('open tasks assigned'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that unassigned and other agents' work is never returned, differentiating it from general task tools like sage_task or sage_list.

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 usage context: 'Use this to see what's been discussed but not yet done, review priorities, and avoid losing track of ideas across sessions.' It implicitly tells when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. Given the presence of many related siblings, a brief exclusion note would improve clarity.

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