marrow_policy_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Does not auto-apply', which signals a non-mutating operation. It also mentions the fallback behavior. However, it does not detail return format, error handling, or whether any side effects beyond resolving occur, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. Every word earns its place, and the 'Does not auto-apply' caveat is a valuable, non-redundant addition.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core function, fallback behavior, and a key side-effect disclaimer. It does not explain the exact meaning of 'explicit mode' or how matches are resolved, but for a resolver tool this is reasonably complete and would enable an agent to use it correctly.

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 high (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, though it implicitly references 'project/workflow' and 'saved policy profiles' which map to the relevant parameters. No additional syntax or format guidance is given.

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 ('Resolve'), the object ('explicit mode'), the source ('from saved policy profiles'), and the fallback behavior ('falling back to recommendation'). It also adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('Does not auto-apply'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like marrow_mode_recommend and marrow_workflow_gate.

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 a clear use case: when you need to resolve an explicit mode from saved profiles, with a recommendation fallback. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over related tools like marrow_mode_recommend.

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