marrow_completion_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, state response format, or mention any side effects. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral 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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action ('List') and efficiently listing the relevant workflow categories. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and the scope of contracts. It could be improved by mentioning the relationship to the evaluation sibling, but the current text is sufficient for a simple listing tool and would not leave an agent confused about invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty, and the description naturally adds no parameter-specific details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's enumeration of workflow types provides useful context about what the returned contracts may cover, even though it doesn't define parameter syntax.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'Marrow completion contracts', enumerating several workflow categories (deploy, merge, publish, etc.). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'marrow_evaluate_completion_contract', which focuses on evaluation rather than listing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a list of completion contracts across specified workflow types. It implies this is the go-to tool for overviews, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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