ask-grok

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it labels the tool as 'advisory, single-shot' and notes external provider call, API key requirement, rate limits, and return format (text-wrapped JSON envelope). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter details, and external dependencies. It lacks explicit error handling but is otherwise complete for a well-annotated 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%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning: it explains that 'expert' applies a persona and is ignored on named expert tools, 'developerInstructions' overrides persona, 'reasoningEffort' applies only to certain providers, and 'files' attachment behavior per provider.

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 is a 'Single-provider second opinion via grok (advisory, single-shot),' identifying the provider and the one-time advisory nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'single-provider' and 'grok,' and mentions 'expert' personas.

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 use for a 'second opinion' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ask-gpt' or 'ask-gemini.' It mentions external dependencies (XAI_API_KEY, rate limits) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool comparisons.

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