sage_pipe_result

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the behavioral trait of auto-journaling the exchange as a memory (summary only). This adds value beyond the input schema. However, it does not detail error handling or required permissions.

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 the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is meaningful.

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 simple parameters and lack of output schema, the description covers the tool's function and a notable side effect (auto-journaling). It could mention that pipe_id must correspond to a previously claimed pipeline, but is otherwise adequate.

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 no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not elaborate on pipe_id or result 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 action: 'Return results for a claimed pipeline work item.' It specifies the resource (pipeline work item) and the verb (return results), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sage_pipe which likely claims the work item.

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 implies usage after claiming a pipeline work item, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives. It provides clear context for its use case.

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