marrow_handoff_status

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only query semantics ('Ask who...'), which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not disclose whether results are aggregated or per-agent, whether historical state is included, or whether special permissions are needed. It adds marginal transparency beyond the basic query intent.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse. Minor deduction for 'Ask' being less direct than 'List' or 'Get', but overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to enable correct invocation. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how parameters filter results, or any edge cases. The tool needs more detail to be safely used by an agent.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, status, agentId). The status list in the description hints at the 'status' parameter but does not explicitly link them. No meaning is added for 'limit' or 'agentId'. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Ask' as a clear query verb and specifies the resource ('agent fleet') and the statuses being queried (pending, stuck, stale, blocked, complete). It is distinguishable from siblings that focus on other aspects like keys, memories, or runtime, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as marrow_status or marrow_agent_status. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The only hint is the status list itself, but it doesn't tell the agent when this is the right tool.

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