grokbot_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered, and the description is consistent with it (a status query). It adds the precondition that the message must have been sent already, which is real context, but says nothing about what the returned status contains or how fresh it is.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding, which is structurally fine. Its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than crispness, so it is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

With no output schema, two required params, and 33% schema coverage, the description carries a heavy burden it does not meet. It never explains what 'send status' actually returns or how the agent should use the result.

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 33%: only session_id is documented in the schema. The description nominally covers message_id ('previously sent message_id') but leaves agent_id completely unexplained and adds no format or meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 states the resource (send status) and the anchor (a previously sent message_id), so the core operation is discernible. However, 'GetGrokBotSendStatus' is essentially the internal function name restated, and nothing distinguishes it from status-adjacent siblings like grokbot_wait, grokbot_pending, or grokbot_history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus grokbot_wait (wait for completion) or grokbot_pending (list outstanding items). The 'previously sent' precondition hints at usage but no alternative or exclusion is named.

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