sage_federation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently discloses that the operation is read-only, caller-filtered, and that mutations are operator-only, which are important constraints not inferable from the tool name or schema alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds value (scope, authorization, mutation exclusions). There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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 simple, read-only discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, authorization, and mutation boundaries. It leaves minor ambiguity around what 'copy status' entails, but overall it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 single parameter peer_cursor is fully documented in the JSON schema (opaque continuation, omit first page, no auto-walk). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and clearly identifies the resources (connected SAGEs, remote domains, agents, copy status) and the caller-filtered, read-only scope. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sage_domains by focusing on federation connections and authorization boundaries.

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 for when to use the tool: to discover authorized federation entities. It also explicitly states what is not in scope (pairing, sharing, subscriptions, other mutations remain operator-only), offering a when-not boundary, though it does not name alternative sibling tools for those operations.

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