marrow_status

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

With no annotations to declare safety or side effects, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check... status' and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is minimal and offers little beyond the tool name.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple health-check tool, though it could add more detail without becoming verbose.

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 with no parameters, annotations, or output schema. The description states the basic function but fails to specify what 'health and status' includes or what kind of response the agent should expect. With no output schema, the description should at least outline return values, which it does not. The presence of several sibling status tools further reduces completeness.

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 per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless status check, and there is no schema to document.

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 clear verb ('Check') and specific resource ('Marrow platform health and status'), stating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like marrow_agent_status or marrow_runtime_status, which also sound like status checks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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