marrow_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the automatic orient → think → commit sequence, which is a key behavior. However, it omits any details about side effects, failure modes, or what the output/return value looks like, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-like tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key benefit ('Zero-ceremony memory logging'), and every phrase adds value. It is tightly written without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's role as a wrapper and when to use it, though it could mention what the tool returns and any prerequisites. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: zero-ceremony memory logging that combines orient, think, and commit into a single call. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools marrow_think and marrow_commit by explicitly referencing them as the manual alternative.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('when you want Marrow to just work without managing the loop yourself') and provides a direct alternative ('instead of chaining marrow_think + marrow_commit'). This is a clear usage guideline with an alternative named.

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