marrow_auto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavioral traits: 'Marrow handles everything in the background without blocking' and 'Zero-friction.' This adds useful context about non-blocking execution. However, it doesn't describe potential side effects (e.g., persistent storage, impact on other tools) or return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, then explains usage, parameters, and a batching tip without fluff. There is no redundant repetition of schema details, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (generic logging, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers what, when, how, and key behavioral constraints. The only notable omission is what happens after logging (e.g., confirmation, visibility), but this is not critical for a fire-and-forget logger.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by clarifying the temporal distinction between action ('about to do') and outcome ('if already done'), and explaining how to combine parameters for one-shot logging. This goes beyond the raw field descriptions.

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: 'Zero-friction Marrow logging' and 'One call for any action.' This specifies the verb (logging) and resource (any action), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as a universal, catch-all logger. It explicitly contrasts with specialized siblings by claiming applicability to 'ANY action.'

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use for ANY action: deploys, file writes, API calls, external sends.' It also provides a practical tip for batching parameters ('pass action + outcome + success together'). However, it doesn't mention when not to use the tool or alternative specialized tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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