marrow_mode_recommend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: no auto-switching and requires user/agent acceptance or override. However, it doesn't explain the side effects of passing selected_mode/selection_source (e.g., logging) or what the response looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The core action and critical constraint (no auto-switching) are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse and remember.

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 simple recommendation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and the no-auto-switch behavior. However, it doesn't mention the return value or how selected_mode/selection_source are used, which would enhance completeness. Moderate gap but not severe.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds the context that project/workflow signals are inputs to the recommendation but doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or interrelations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is complete.

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 action ('Recommend'), the specific targets (passive/pilot/enforce modes), and the input basis (project/workflow signals). It explicitly distinguishes itself from other Marrow tools by noting that it never auto-switches, which differentiates it from workflow or execution 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?

The description implies usage when a mode recommendation is needed based on project/workflow signals. It also signals that for automatic mode switching, other tools should be used ('Marrow never auto-switches here'), though it doesn't name specific alternatives. This is clear context with minor absence of explicit exclusions.

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