grok_check

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: it returns a specific envelope with rows, and preserves old bridge JSON for backward compatibility. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or is idempotent.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence covers the purpose and scope, and the second explains the return format and backward compatibility. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple nature (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains the return structure and includes specific checks (node, grok binary, auth). It covers backward compatibility and the envelope format, making it complete for an AI agent.

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% for the single parameter (cwd), and the description adds no additional information about it. The schema already describes it sufficiently, so the description meets the baseline without adding value.

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 probes whether the Grok Build bridge and CLI are ready, specifying the exact resources (node, grok binary, auth). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grok_run (execution) and grok_stop (stopping).

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 implies using this tool before running operations to check readiness, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or how it differs from alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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