grok

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavioral traits: default mode ('free browser mode'), automatic switching behavior ('auto-switches to API for structured output'), and the tool's scope (analyzing links, searching, answering questions). However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format expectations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides important behavioral context about modes. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and mode behavior, it doesn't address important contextual aspects: what the response looks like, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it differs from the sibling tool. The description is adequate for basic understanding but leaves significant gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions modes ('free browser mode', 'API') which relate to the 'track' parameter's enum values, but this doesn't provide additional semantic value beyond the schema's enum description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Ask Grok AI to analyze X/Twitter links, search X, or answer questions.' This specifies the verb ('ask Grok AI') and resources/actions (analyze links, search, answer questions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'grok_budget' - we can infer this tool is for general queries while grok_budget might be cost-related, but the description doesn't make this distinction clear.

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 provides some usage context: 'Defaults to free browser mode; auto-switches to API for structured output.' This gives guidance on mode selection behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'grok_budget' or provide clear when/when-not scenarios. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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