gage_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the bundle is signed, that the outbound secret scan always runs and cannot be overridden, and that delivery is local or directory-based rather than off-machine. It does not cover permissions, failure behavior, overwrite semantics, or return values, which are significant gaps for a 12-parameter tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds the important scoping and safety details. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It covers the bundle categories and local-delivery behavior but leaves most parameters, return behavior, and operational failure modes unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 12 parameters. It explains only files, prompts, decisions, and memories, leaving to, out, dirs, type, agent, model, subject, and reply_to undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it builds a signed bundle for a contact. It also distinguishes the tool from gage_push by saying gage_push is what leaves the machine, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as local delivery and names gage_push as the alternative for off-machine sending. It does not explicitly cover when to choose gage_send over gage_open, gage_pull, or other siblings, but the core routing guidance is present.

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