grokbot_react

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether reactions are additive or replace existing ones, whether they can be removed, whether the acting agent must be in the session, or what happens if the same emoji is applied twice – meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the action and target immediately. It is arguably too sparse rather than too long, but the sentence itself is well-formed and waste-free.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage needs far more than one line to be safely invokable. The description leaves the emoji encoding, entry targeting, and result behavior entirely undefined.

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 only 25%: just session_id is documented ('Chat session id; default empty MAIN transcript'). The description adds nothing about emoji format (unicode vs shortcode), what entry_id references, or how agent_id is scoped, leaving three required parameters unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 (react) plus resource (transcript entry) and the instrument (emoji), so the basic action is unmistakable. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like grokbot_send or grokbot_history, which also touch transcript content, so it does not reach 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and never names an alternative tool for related operations such as reading or sending to the transcript. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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