sage_message_reply

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that local replies are idempotent and federated replies use a negotiated secure delivery/deduplication protocol, which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds behavioral nuance. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's use and behavior.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core aspects: what it does, where message_id comes from, and behavioral guarantees. Missing return-value details and error handling are notable gaps, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 already describes both parameters, with result having 'Untrusted result data returned to the sender'. The description adds clarity about message_id being receiver-local and sourced from specific functions, partially compensating for the 50% schema coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on result's format or constraints beyond the schema, so it falls short of fully bridging the gap.

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: 'Reply to one receiver-local message_id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sage_message_send by explicitly calling it a reply mechanism tied to sage_messages_receive or sage_inbox. The added context about idempotency and federation further clarifies scope.

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 when-to-use context by indicating the message_id comes from sage_messages_receive or sage_inbox. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the reply-vs-send distinction is implied. This meets the bar for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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