grok_codex_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'diagnosis' but does not clarify if it modifies state, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. It assumes a read-only check but leaves behavior ambiguous.

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?

Description is very concise (5 words) but lacks structure. It front-loads 'Quick local diagnosis' but omits details like output format or usage hints. Could be clearer and more organized within the same length.

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 does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., status strings, summary object). With no output schema, the agent lacks information to interpret results. Given sibling tools that return specific statuses, completeness is low.

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?

No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is 100%. Description need not add parameter info. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a quick local diagnosis covering consent, credentials, and default model. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grok_codex_consent_status (single check) and grok_codex_list_models (listing models), as it aggregates multiple checks in one call.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over individual status checks or how it differs from them in terms of context or use case.

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