marrow_orient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool returns lessons/warnings, and it instructs handling of shouldPause=true. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, whether it is read-only, or any authorization/error behavior beyond 'authorized.' This is a moderate transparency gap.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the most important usage instruction ('Call at session start'), and every sentence adds distinct value: when to use, what it returns, and how to handle the response plus an alternative. No filler.

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 description covers when to call, what it returns, the shouldPause behavior, and points to an alternative for policy gating. Missing is a description of the response format or examples of lessons/warnings, which could help given there is no output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's purpose.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'failure warnings' tangentially related to autoWarn. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the param semantics.

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 states the tool 'Returns authorized prior lessons and failure warnings for the current account or agent,' which is a specific verb (returns) and resource (lessons/warnings). It also clarifies the timing ('at session start or before meaningful work') and distinguishes from the sibling tool marrow_agent_runtime by directing policy-gate usage elsewhere.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('at session start or before meaningful work') and provides a clear alternative: 'Use marrow_agent_runtime for the policy gate before a consequential side effect.' This gives both positive usage context and an exclusion, which is strong guidance.

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