marrow_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and state changes. It only lists action names without explaining what actually happens when registering, starting, or advancing a workflow—e.g., whether it mutates state, triggers next steps, or requires permissions. 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 efficient: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list actions. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundant fluff. It's well-structured for quick scanning.

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 (7 actions, 15 parameters, no output schema), the description is too high-level. It doesn't explain action-specific requirements, what each action returns, or how actions chain together in a workflow lifecycle. The schema covers parameter syntax but not conceptual 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents all 15 parameters. The description adds minimal meaningful context (e.g., 'register (create workflow template)') but doesn't provide syntax or correlation details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 domain ('Marrow Workflow Registry') and enumerates specific actions (register, list, get, start, advance, instances). It uses a specific verb ('Interact') and resource, which establishes purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like marrow_workflow_gate, but the resource name provides enough distinction.

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 action list implicitly suggests usage (e.g., use 'register' to create templates, 'advance' to complete steps), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The description lacks a clear 'use this when...' statement.

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