grok_workflow

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.