marrow_digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, what permissions are required, or any side effects. It focuses on the output contents rather than safety or operational behavior.

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-loads the verb and resource, and lists the key output components efficiently. Every sentence contributes useful detail without wasted words.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of explaining the purpose and contents of the digest. It lists the main sections (decision counts, trend, saves, improvements, risks) and the default period, though it could go further by noting limitations or clarifying the 'Marrow impact' concept relative to sibling tools.

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 already documents the 'period' parameter with 100% coverage, including the default and allowed values. The description adds a redundant mention of the default 7-day period but does not introduce any new parameter context, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves a periodic summary of agent activity and Marrow impact, listing the specific metrics included (decision counts, success rate trend, saves, improvements, risks). This distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools like marrow_dashboard or marrow_value_report by emphasizing the periodic digest format and the default 7-day period.

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 phrase 'periodic summary' and the default 7-day period make the intended context clear – the agent should call this for a periodic review of activity and impact. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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