ask_grok

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: single-turn, local grok CLI, grok-4.6 by default, hermetic execution with tools disabled, use of the grok login session, and the binary_missing failure mode. It also explains the tool's scope limitations, which is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 information-rich, but it is somewhat run-on and contains redundancy: 'single-turn' appears twice, and various parentheticals are stacked. The final sentence about refused domains trails off, making the structure feel less polished than it could be.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: prerequisites, failure behavior, execution mode, and scope. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the response format, and the incomplete final sentence leaves the refusal list slightly ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra meaning by saying 'put the code it needs in context' and characterizing the question as a 'specific software/engineering question,' but it does not substantially elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 this tool asks xAI's Grok model to reason about software/engineering work, listing concrete topics like code structure, data flow, and architecture. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_atlas and from Fable by saying it is 'on its own, independent of Fable'.

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?

It gives an explicit preference rule: 'PREFER THIS over ask_atlas with xai/grok-* whenever the grok binary is installed.' It also states what kinds of questions are fine (broad engineering questions) and what is not (offensive security, non-software knowledge), and notes the prerequisite that the grok CLI must be installed and logged in.

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