marrow_agent_status

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

No annotations are provided, but the description carries the burden well for a read-only status tool. It discloses that this is a non-destructive check ('Check whether'), names the returned data (connected state, signal quality, non-sensitive proof, next actions), and clarifies the proof is non-sensitive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a concise use case. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a low-complexity status check, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no output schema, but the return categories are explicitly named. A minor gap is lack of detail about output formatting or behavior across periods, but the schema compensates.

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% for both parameters (period and agentId), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter detail, such as how period ranges behave or how agentId filtering works, beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific action ('Check whether Marrow is passively active') with a clear resource ('for this agent or fleet') and lists concrete return values. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools by emphasizing fleet scope, passive activity, and dashboard-free proof.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use at session start or before owner reporting'. This is clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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