marrow_runtime_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read live' indicating a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as potential latency, caching behavior (the 'fast' parameter hints at this but is not explained), authentication requirements, or what the response contains beyond the listed categories. This is a significant 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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the exact action and endpoint, and the second sentence provides use context. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple (one optional boolean parameter) and the schema covers everything. The description gives a clear purpose and usage context, but without an output schema or annotations, it does not describe return format or behavior of the 'fast' path. For a read-only diagnostic tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter 'fast' ('Use fast cached summary path when available. Defaults to true.'). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. A baseline score of 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 action: 'Read live Marrow runtime hook diagnostics from /v1/agent/status.' It specifies the resource and lists the exact diagnostic categories (passive hook, token-capture, outcome-closure, client-update, repair-command status), distinguishing it from broader status tools like marrow_status or marrow_agent_runtime.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this when an agent needs exact passive hook, token-capture, outcome-closure, client-update, and repair-command status.' This gives a clear use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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