grok_session_switch

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

The description discloses that the tool switches to an independent session and avoids reusing old context, but it does not explain what happens to the old session (e.g., suspended, closed) or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and is insufficient for understanding behavioral impact.

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 a single sentence, efficient and to the point. It covers the trigger and action without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter roles, return values, or detailed behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description provides no information about the parameters (codex_task_id, project_root, branch, etc.), even though schema coverage is 0%. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be insufficient. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: to switch to an independent Grok session when project path, working directory, or Git branch changes. It uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('Grok session'), and distinguishes from siblings like grok_session_ensure (which likely creates/ensures a session) and grok_session_close (which closes one).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when project path, working directory, or Git branch changes. It implies this is the correct tool for session switching and mentions avoiding reuse of irrelevant old context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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