marrow_governance_control_plane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return' (implying read-only), but does not explain whether 'proof' involves computation, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if control-plane data is unavailable. The return semantics remain opaque.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence lists all major content areas without filler. Every word contributes to setting expectations. Very 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?

For a zero-parameter aggregate status tool, the description adequately lists high-level content categories. However, with no output schema, it leaves terms like 'proof packs', 'fleet intelligence', and 'exact next action' undefined, and does not clarify the response structure or level of detail. This is a minimal viable description but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. Baseline 4 applies; no gaps to penalize.

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?

Description clearly states it 'Return[s] Marrow control-plane proof' and enumerates the contents: governance, runtime gates, proof packs, fleet intelligence, supported harnesses, and exact next action. This is a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling status/governance tools.

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 implies a current-state proof/status use case, but does not state when this is preferred over related tools like marrow_status, marrow_governance_timeline, or marrow_dashboard.

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