marrow_agent_runtime

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It lists return fields but does not disclose whether the tool causes side effects, requires authentication, or behaves differently under certain conditions. 'Passive status' hints at read-only, but it's not explicit, and preconditions are unstated.

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 dense sentences; the first packs a long list of outputs, the second gives usage. No filler, but the output list is a bit unwieldy and could be structured more clearly.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It lists output names but not their structure, interpretation, or any behavioral context. A comprehensive decision-guidance tool should explain what 'passive status' or 'risk gate' means and how to act on the response.

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 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but the schema already documents each of the 9 parameters adequately.

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 identifies the tool as a 'one-call agent-native Marrow loop' and enumerates the returned artifacts, distinguishing it as a comprehensive guidance call. However, 'Marrow loop' is jargon, and sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 to use 'before meaningful work when you want Marrow to guide the whole action in one call,' providing clear timing and intent. It doesn't mention alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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