grok_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior for background mode (enqueue and exit), default timeouts, read-only default, and that prompt is processed via a tmpdir file. It does not cover error handling or failure modes, but is otherwise transparent.

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 dense and informative, with no wasted words. It could be more readable with structured bullet points, but it remains sufficiently concise and every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and key parameter behaviors. It mentions polling siblings for completion. However, it does not describe the return format (jobId JSON) in detail or cover error scenarios, leaving some gaps.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds crucial usage context: background timeout limits, effect of write flag, prompt processing via tmpdir, and cwd usage for project paths. These details go beyond the schema, providing safety warnings and best practices.

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 a Grok Build task via bridge, distinguishing between background and foreground modes. It references polling grok_show for completion, differentiating it from sibling tools that check or list runs.

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 context for when to use background vs foreground, and mentions polling grok_show for status. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool over alternatives, but the background/foreground distinction and the mention of grok_show serve as good guidance.

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