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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: Grok has no context about conversation or codebase, responses include a response_id for continuation, file inclusion syntax, model options, and search defaults. The limitation of previous_response_id in multi-agent mode is also noted.

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 fairly long but well-organized, using bold for emphasis and clear sections. Every sentence contributes essential information. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient for the complexity covered.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: covers all input aspects, explains the output (response_id), gives continuation guidance, and addresses the critical context limitation. Complete and actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial value: explains the rationale for using files, provides detailed file path syntax, clarifies the purpose of previous_response_id, and describes model options and search behavior. It enriches the parameter meanings significantly beyond the schema.

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 'Ask Grok a question' and outlines what Grok excels at (thinking, planning, architecture, real-time search). It distinguishes from related tools like web_search and x_search, though they are not listed as siblings on this server. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use web_search for current information... Use x_search to find and analyze posts.' Also gives critical usage guidance: include full context, use files parameter, how to continue conversations with previous_response_id. No ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a dry-run (non-destructive), verifies file resolution, checks context size, and states that file paths resolve relative to /app. It doesn't detail error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple check tool this is adequate.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and a single sibling, the description covers the core functionality and relationship well. It explains validation equivalence and file resolution. It does not describe the return format, but the overall completeness is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds an important context note about file paths resolving relative to /app, which is not in the schema. However, this is environmental context rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a 'dry-run file resolution' and explicitly differentiates it from its sibling 'ask_grok' by positioning it as a preparatory verification step. The verb 'check' and noun 'files' are specific.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this before ask_grok' and explains that if check_files passes, ask_grok will too. It also notes the same validation logic, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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