marrow_fleet_lessons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Retrieve' implicitly signals a read-only operation, and 'ranked' and 'reusable' add context. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or result format, which is a gap for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, the second gives concrete use cases. There is zero fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, so the description should help the agent understand what a 'lesson' looks like and what to do with the returned data. While the description clarifies when to call it, it does not describe the return format beyond the word 'ranked', leaving a meaningful gap for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description coverage is high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it never mentions type, limit, query, or agentId. The enum for 'type' lacks a schema description but the enum values are self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb-resource pair ('Retrieve ranked reusable fleet lessons') and immediately indicates the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory and handoff tools by focusing on 'lessons' rather than memories or handoffs, making the resource type unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use before deploys, handoffs, migrations, audits, and repeated task types.' This gives clear positive use cases, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Missing the 'when-not' component prevents a 5.

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