marrow_decision_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose what the call returns (risk level, workflow steps, handoff requirements, etc.) and positions it as a 'pre-action call.' However, it does not state whether the call has side effects, requires authentication, or is read-only. This is a noticeable gap for a tool that might be used before critical operations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose ('One pre-action call before meaningful or risky work'), followed by a concise list of return contents and usage contexts. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It names the key return fields and specifies when to use it. It does not explain how parameters like role, type, period, or surfaces map to the returned brief, but the schema covers their definitions. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is quite complete for selection and invocation purposes.

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 input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description is not required to re-explain them. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, but it also does not need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this is a 'pre-action call' that 'returns risk level, workflow/playbook steps, handoff requirements, freshness/source-of-truth checks, minimum verification checks, proof-pack fields, and next actions.' It uses specific verbs and lists concrete use cases ('deploys, publishes, merges, audits, patches, secret changes, or production work'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like marrow_run or marrow_workflow_gate.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before deploys, publishes, merges, audits, patches, secret changes, or production work.' This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls 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.