sage_pipe

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the target sees the work in their inbox on next turn/call, SAGE journals the exchange but does not store the full payload as memory. This covers core behavioral traits. No mention of auth or rate limits, but the scope is narrow.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds distinct information: what the tool does, how the target receives it, addressing options, and storage behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the outcome (target sees in inbox, journaling occurs, no memory storage). It covers the key aspects for a messaging tool. Could mention how to retrieve results, but that is likely covered by sibling tools like sage_pipe_result or sage_inbox.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the 'to' parameter can be a provider name or agent_id, and by noting that the payload is not stored as memory (contrasting with journaling). This provides behavioral context beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 verb ('Send work') and resource ('another agent via SAGE pipeline'), and explains the mechanism (target sees in inbox on next sage_turn or sage_inbox call). It distinguishes from siblings like sage_inbox (receiving) and sage_turn (initiating turns).

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: use this to send work to another agent and expect it to appear in their inbox. It explains addressing by provider name or agent_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the context is clear enough for an agent.

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