grok_task_start

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

The description discloses the critical blocking behavior and warns against parallel execution. It also clarifies that architecture and review are Codex's domain. Without annotations, this is useful context, though it does not cover error handling or return values.

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 very concise—three sentences that each add essential information: when to use, blocking behavior, and responsibility split. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description lacks parameter details and does not describe the return value or outcome of the call. With 12 parameters and no output schema, an agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without additional information.

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 schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage. The description mentions the task objective and mode only implicitly, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 hand off tasks (code modification, command execution, testing) from Codex to Grok, and it distinguishes this tool by emphasizing its blocking behavior and the division of responsibilities (Codex handles planning and review).

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 explains when to use the tool (after Codex completes requirements analysis) and what not to do (avoid parallel work during the blocking call). It also clarifies that planning and review remain with Codex. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like grok_task_status or grok_task_cancel.

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