Check Grok Build readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing exactly what is reported (version, binary, permission ceiling, CLI readiness, run defaults), giving the agent concrete expectations about the output. No contradictions.

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 sentence conveys all necessary information without filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose and lists specific outputs. Slightly dense but efficient; no unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures what the tool does and what it returns. It is self-contained: an agent reading it knows exactly when to call it and what information to expect.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per calibration, baseline is 4. The description has no need to explain parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('grok-build-mcp-server status'), clearly stating it outputs version, binary, permission ceiling, CLI readiness, and run defaults. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is the first diagnostic step when a grok tool misbehaves, separating it from tools like 'grok', 'status', and 'help'.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first when a grok tool behaves unexpectedly,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it for troubleshooting.

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