grok_get_prompt_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly indicates the tool returns a 'complete guide with prompt structure, examples, and tips.' Being a read-only informational tool, it has no side effects, and the output schema covers return values. The description is transparent enough for the use case.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage context and return value. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, read-only), the description is complete. It explains what it does, why you'd use it, and what you'll get back. The output schema further details the return structure, so no additional information is needed.

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 no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed, and it does not need to add detail 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 guidance on writing effective prompts for Grok Imagine video generation.' It specifies the action (get) and resource (prompt guide), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like grok_text_to_video or grok_chat_completions, which perform generation tasks.

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 implies usage context by stating 'shows how to structure prompts for best video generation results,' suggesting it should be used before video generation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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