Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• grok_workflowA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether running a workflow has side effects (e.g., mutating files, requiring permissions, making network calls), nor does it describe rate limits or error behavior. While it lists the return JSON fields, this is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary build workflows.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Bullet points for parameters and a return format line add structure without excessive verbosity. The only minor flaw is that the hyphen-prefixed lines feel slightly informal, but they are still clear and efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers purpose, main parameters, and return format, but lacks details on timeout_secs semantics, potential side effects, and error handling. Given that no annotations are present and the tool executes workflows, more completeness is expected for safe and correct usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'name' and 'args_json' with a concrete example for args_json, but it omits 'timeout_secs' entirely. This leaves one parameter unexplained, so the compensation is partial.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a named Grok Build workflow'. It provides concrete examples (audit-plan, verify-diff) and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning that workflow names come from .grok/workflows/ and can be listed via grok_workflows, implying this tool executes them.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage context by instructing that the workflow name is obtained from .grok/workflows/ and can be listed via grok_workflows, establishing a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with grok_ask or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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

• grok_workflowsA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the path specification adds context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, what happens if no workflows exist, or whether any environment setup is required. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and is immediately informative. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and it fits the tool's simplicity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete: it states the operation, the resource type, and the location. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema is present. The absence of parameter details is irrelevant since there are none.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are 0 parameters, and the schema has no properties. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool lists and from where, providing context that the schema cannot. Since 0 parameters typically warrant a baseline of 4, this score is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List available Grok Build workflows'. It specifies the source path ('.grok/workflows/*.rhai'), making the resource unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes from siblings like 'grok_workflow' (singular) and 'grok_ask' by focusing on listing workflows.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for listing workflows, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'grok_workflow' or 'grok_ask'. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The simple nature of the tool makes the usage somewhat obvious, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

• grok_askA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that worker mode is 'auto-approved', can write and execute shell, requires a worktree/scratch, and refuses the main tree unless overridden. It also explains return statuses and timeout behavior, giving the agent a strong safety and behavior model.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then uses a clean bulleted parameter list with defaults and behavioral notes. Every line provides necessary information about a complex tool, with no wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's high complexity (worker mode, shell access, dual-gate enforcement) and zero annotations, the description is complete: it covers modes, constraints, defaults, return JSON shape, and status values. The presence of an output schema is a bonus, and the description still explains enough to use the tool safely.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: required prompt, channel default, cwd defaults and worktree requirement, worker mode semantics, model default, attach_file limitation ('repeatable not supported here'), and timeout meaning. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description begins with 'Ask Grok' and clearly distinguishes consult mode from worker mode, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling tools grok_workflow and grok_workflows, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use worker mode ('worker=True to let Grok edit/run shell in cwd') and includes exclusions like 'main tree refused unless dual-gate override'. It does not mention when to use this tool versus the workflow siblings, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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