sage_find_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details bounded substring matching, case-sensitivity rules, ranking of exact field matches, and the important caveat that an absent match does not prove an agent_id is unreachable. This goes well beyond a simple lookup description.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with purpose, then covers search behavior, the peer exception, return readiness, and finally exclusions/caveats. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy, despite the complexity of the matching rules.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, search semantics, the peer_chain alternative, and a critical limitation. The tool's role in preparation for sage_message_send is clear, and no missing context impedes correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including the matching rules and bounded continuation for peer_cursor. The description reinforces these but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Discover an active agent by a human name before sending a message.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'This is not a global directory or an online/reachability check' and by naming the companion tool sage_message_send.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided ('before sending a message'), and the description explains when to set peer_chain instead of local search. It also gives an explicit alternative ('sage_message_send.to') and clarifies when the tool should not be used, such as for reachability checks.

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