grok_runs

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but omits details like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or whether results are return full objects or summaries. Minimal transparency.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but slightly ambiguous (e.g., parenthetical '(runs)' could be misinterpreted). It lacks front-loading of critical info like the primary use case.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value format, but it does not. It also fails to mention error scenarios or how to handle large result sets. Incomplete for a listing tool.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds context that run_id selects a single run, but this is inferrable from the param description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value 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 the tool lists 'tracked Grok bridge runs' and can fetch a single run by ID, achieving a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar names like 'grok_run' or 'grok_show', which could cause confusion.

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 two usage modes (list all vs. by ID) but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., grok_check, grok_show). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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