marrow_value_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait by noting that the report includes 'summary, decision metrics, saves, active agents, top risks, recommendations, and improvement data without raw decision text.' This is a clear output-scope statement. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe any permission, rate-limit, or side-effect characteristics, leaving the safety profile partially unspecified.

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 that immediately states the core function. The list of returned data items is compact and directly informative, with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place, making it efficiently structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description effectively covers what the tool returns (a list of sections) and what it excludes (raw decision text). It is sufficient for a simple read-only report with two optional parameters. It does not explain how to request a fleet vs. single-agent report in terms of parameters, but the schema partially covers that, and the description's 'for this agent or fleet' conveys the idea.

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% for the two optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add details about the 'period' parameter, and its mention of 'fleet' adds ambiguous context for 'agentId' (the schema says it defaults to MARROW_AGENT_ID, which may not represent a fleet). No additional parameter syntax or behavioral nuances are provided beyond the schema.

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: 'Get owner-ready proof of Marrow value for this agent or fleet.' It specifies a verb ('Get'), a resource ('proof of Marrow value'), and scope ('agent or fleet'). The mention of 'without raw decision text' helps distinguish it from decision-trace tools, and the enumerated outputs (summary, decision metrics, saves, etc.) make its function unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. It does not state 'use when...' or reference alternatives like 'marrow_buyer_proof' or 'marrow_dashboard.' The only contextual hint is 'for this agent or fleet,' which describes scope rather than selection criteria.

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