ask-grok

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'advisory, single-shot', which clarifies statelessness and non-destructive nature, but provides no additional behavioral details like rate limits or response handling.

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 (two sentences), front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, but the second sentence about 'expert' could be integrated.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested files object, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain many parameters and the return format, leaving the agent without essential usage context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and 6 parameters, only the 'expert' parameter is explained ('Pass `expert` to apply one of the expert personas'). Other parameters (prompt, reasoningEffort, files, cwd, developerInstructions) are not described, leaving gaps.

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 indicates it is a single-provider second opinion via grok, distinguishing it from ask-all and other provider-specific tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get answer'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ask-gemini or ask-gpt. The description only states it is a single-provider tool, implying use when you want grok specifically, but no explicit when-not or alternatives.

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