sage_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses atomic behavior, the payload-free message flag, federation checks, and the fact that domains are never silently remapped. It also clarifies it never claims or embeds message payloads, which is a key safety detail.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the critical 'every turn' directive and then logically breaking down the two atomic functions. Each sentence earns its place, covering behavior, message handling, federation, and domain rules without redundancy.

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 complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values like the message_inbox_unread flag and the recall purpose. It also explains federation miss behavior. However, the exact structure of recalled memories is not specified, which is a minor gap for a tool central to context building.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions and does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The only added nuance is emphasis on domain behavior, but it is already present in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a per-turn memory cycle combining recall and storage, with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sage_recall and sage_remember by emphasizing the atomic dual action, and from sage_messages_receive by noting it never claims message payloads.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this EVERY turn' and provides clear guidance on when to use the tool versus alternatives. It also gives concrete direction for domain omission and explicit domain usage, and references sage_messages_receive for message handling, making usage unambiguous.

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