Bot Shelf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the result ordering ("close matches, best first") and the exact payload per match (Bot Shelf page, share link, one-tap add link), which is the key behavioral fact for this tool. It omits read-only/rate-limit/empty-result behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is, then when to use it, then what comes back, then an attribution policy — a sensible order. The example list is slightly padded at three samples, but every sentence contributes information.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover purpose, usage and returns, and it largely does — including return contents that would otherwise be invisible. Minor gaps remain around result count behavior (limit semantics) and whether results can be empty.

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 67%, so the description should add meaning. It does for the primary parameter by establishing that the query is a plain-language job description with worked examples, but it says nothing about the limit or category parameters, leaving those entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Bot Shelf, 9,000+ ready-made community Grok Bots shared on X") and disambiguates scope with a job-oriented framing plus three concrete example queries. An agent can distinguish it from get_bot (single lookup) and latest (recency feed) without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear trigger conditions: use it when someone wants a bot/agent/template for a job, when no existing personal bot covers it, and explicitly before offering to build a new one. The build-new path maps to the sibling suggest_bot but is described rather than named, so routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it implies a read-only single-record lookup and notes accepted link forms. It does not cover permissions, invalid-link behavior, or whether the full listing includes sensitive fields.

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 concise sentence with no wasted wording, and the accepted identifier formats are front-loaded. It is slightly compressed and the phrase 'full listing' is a bit vague, but the structure is efficient.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it explains accepted input formats and that a full listing is returned. It remains incomplete because it does not clarify what the listing contains or how missing and invalid links are handled.

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 0% for the single required string parameter, so the description adds important meaning by defining accepted inputs: an x.ai/bot share link, the id after x.ai/bot/, or a Bot Shelf page link. It does not provide exact examples or validation rules, but it compensates well for an otherwise bare 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 identifies retrieval of a single bot and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_bots by emphasizing one bot’s full listing. It does not use an explicit verb such as 'retrieve,' but 'full listing' makes the intent understandable.

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 states which identifier forms are accepted, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not route agents to find_bots or latest when they lack an exact link. Usage is only implied by the required link parameter.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not state that this is a read-only listing, what 'recently' means (creation date vs. update), the ordering direction, or the default result count, all of which matter for a listing endpoint.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), but the description still omits the default page size, ordering semantics, and any hint of return shape. For a discovery tool an agent may call blindly, that leaves real gaps.

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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it at all. The schema's default of 10 and maximum of 20 are the only clues, and the description adds no meaning about what the limit controls or what happens when it is omitted.

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 names the resource ('bots') and a scope ('most recently added to Bot Shelf'), so an agent can infer it returns a recency-ordered listing. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling 'find_bots' or explain how 'latest' differs from a general search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of 'find_bots' or 'suggest_bot', and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is a browse-recent shortcut purely from the word 'latest'.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the return content. It says nothing about ordering, whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, whether counts are live, or that the operation is a read with no side effects — all of which an agent would want before calling.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded ahead of the payload detail. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a simple zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description does the minimum by explaining what comes back (categories plus counts). It is missing the read-only guarantee and any hint about result size or ordering, which would round out a complete definition even for a tool this small.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no schema meaning for the description to supplement; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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 names the resource (Bot Shelf's categories) and states the payload each entry carries (bot counts), which is more specific than the title alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the bot-oriented siblings, but the resource distinction is obvious enough that an agent can separate it from find_bots or get_bot.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus an alternative, and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance are given. Usage is only implied by the word 'categories' — an agent must infer that this is the entry point for browsing the catalog before drilling into bots.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important behaviors: human moderation before listing and a deduplication rule against existing listings. What it omits is the outcome of a call (confirmation, rejection, async status) and any limits on repeated submissions.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what to submit, what review happens, and what not to submit. The purpose is front-loaded ahead of the constraints.

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?

For a three-parameter submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, moderation, and deduplication. Only the post-call result is left unspecified, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds a bit of meaning by clarifying that the link may be either an x.ai/bot share link or an X post URL, matching the intent of the required 'link' field. It says nothing about 'name' or 'note', but those already have schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Suggest a Grok Bot for Bot Shelf') with the two acceptable artifacts, which immediately separates it from the read-only siblings find_bots, get_bot, latest, and list_categories.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use, notably 'A person reviews every suggestion before it is listed' and 'Bots already listed are not resubmitted', which tells the agent submission is a moderated queue and that already-catalogued bots should not be resubmitted. It does not explicitly name a sibling to use instead when the bot is already listed (e.g., get_bot to check).

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