Grok CLI help

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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by revealing the implementation detail that it runs `grok --help` and captures stdout, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides implementation details. Both are essential for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. Excellent front-loading.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and very simple behavior. The description fully captures what the tool does, how it works (runs a command), and what it returns (stdout). For a help tool, this is completely adequate.

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 100% (no parameters exist). The description mentions no arguments, which is consistent. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no further info about parameters because none are needed.

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 runs `grok --help` and returns its stdout, specifying the exact verb ('show'), resource ('Grok CLI help text'), and execution method. This distinguishes it entirely from sibling tools like `check` or `websearch`.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool (to show the grok CLI help text), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. For a tool with 0 parameters and a narrow, well-defined purpose, this is adequate.

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