marrow_decision_trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Inspect' but does not disclose return format, error behavior, permissions, or whether any state changes occur. The term 'tenant-scoped' hints at access constraints but is not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action verb. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise 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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the user receives. It mentions inspecting a 'path' but does not describe the output format (e.g., list, graph, narrative). It also lacks context on how the path components (failures, lessons, gate, proof, workflow, outcome) are presented or related. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is a notable gap.

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% and the decisionId parameter is already described as 'Decision ID owned by this account and agent scope.' The description does not add further detail about how the parameter is used or any constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly identifies the resource: 'the tenant-scoped path from a decision to prior failures, reused lessons, gate, proof, workflow, and observed outcome.' It conveys a distinct function compared to sibling tools like marrow_decision_brief or marrow_workflow_gate, which likely provide summaries or gate statuses.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the description's wording.

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