sage_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it explains conditional responses (active agents get memory counts; pending-review agents get approval state), states a safety constraint ('without probing forbidden memory routes'), and explicitly discloses what the tool never returns (roster, global node counts). This goes well beyond a basic 'get status' statement.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by conditional details and a negative guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: what is returned for different caller states, what is explicitly excluded, and a safety note. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the response boundaries without needing more structured metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the implicit 'signed caller' identity and the conditional behavior based on caller status, which is relevant to how the tool behaves but not required for parameter explanation. No parameter details are needed.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get this signed caller's own registration and access standing.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing 'own' status and explicitly noting it never returns a roster or global node counts, which separates it from broader status or listing tools.

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: when the caller needs their own registration/access standing, with conditional behavior for active vs. pending-review agents. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the scope is evident from the 'own status' framing and the exclusion of global data.

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