marrow_policy_profiles

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and discloses the default-business fallback, but omits return format, authorization requirements, and pagination behavior.

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 with no filler. It states the action, resource, and an important edge-case behavior efficiently.

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 no-argument listing tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the action and the fallback. Since there is no output schema, explicitly describing the return format would improve completeness, but the current wording is adequate for basic usage.

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, so the schema provides no information. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-related details, but none are needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('saved Marrow governance policy profiles') with account scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like marrow_create_policy_profile and marrow_policy_resolve.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (viewing saved profiles) and notes fallback behavior. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only listing nature makes the use case evident.

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