marrow_hermes_integration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, no authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 sentence, about 20 words, that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no redundant information or filler, making it appropriately 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and its purpose. It does not explain the return format (e.g., Markdown, plain text), which would be helpful but is not critical for an informational guide 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist.

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 ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('Hermes Agent integration guide') with clear content scope (mapping /goal, verification evidence, /learn, /journey, and background subagents). This distinguishes it from other marrow_* sibling tools, which focus on keys, memories, workflows, and other operational concerns.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need the Hermes integration guide) but does not explicitly state usage context, exclusions, or alternatives. It is clear enough for an informational tool, but lacks the 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations seen in higher-scoring examples.

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