Grok bridge diagnostics

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals that no quota is consumed, that auth/model data come from `grok models` which answers even when logged out, and importantly warns that the backend is EXPERIMENTAL with unverified end-to-end behavior. These are valuable behavioral insights.

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 key fact ('spends no quota'), structured into a clear overview, detailed output list, and usage guidance. Every sentence carries unique value and there is no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description fully covers its purpose, output scope, safety characteristics, usage context, and a crucial caveat about experimental status. The presence of an output schema makes the lack of explicit return-format details acceptable.

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 requires no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining what the tool reports, which is more relevant to output than parameter semantics. No parameter information is 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 states the tool's specific action ('Report diagnostics') and resource ('Grok Build bridge setup'), and immediately clarifies it spends no quota. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like grok_ask/grok_continue by being a status/diagnostic tool, and even references antigravity_status for the update notice.

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 when to use: 'Use this to debug "grok not found" or auth errors before spending quota.' It also positions itself as cheap, safe, and first to call, giving clear decision guidance relative to other tools that spend quota.

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