Ask Grok Build (new session) [experimental]

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the experimental status ('has never completed an authenticated round-trip'), warns that it may misbehave and asks to report issues, and states it returns the agent's final message from `--output-format json`. This adds meaningful risk and behavior context not present in structured hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and experimental warning in the first paragraph; the second paragraph covers auth, output, and workspace usage. Each sentence is substantive, though slightly verbose.

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 complexity, the rich schema/annotations/output schema, and the experimental nature, the description covers the essential risk factors, auth, output, and workspace guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke it safely.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., sandbox profiles, watch streaming). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond a passing mention of workspace location, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Ask Grok Build (`grok -p`) a question or task in a NEW session.' This clearly distinguishes it from grok_continue (explicit 'NEW session') and grok_status.

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?

It states prerequisites ('Needs a SuperGrok / X Premium+ login... or an XAI_API_KEY env var'), directs the agent to 'run `grok_status` first,' and suggests pointing workspace at project dir for context-aware answers. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative for continuing sessions, but the 'NEW session' wording implies the boundary.

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