grok_status

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. The wording ('列出', '读取详情和结果') does convey read-only retrieval semantics and that full=true widens the payload, but it says nothing about result limits, pagination, ordering, or what happens when an id is unknown or a task is still running.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the default no-argument listing behavior is front-loaded before the two modifier modes. The semicolon-chained clauses are dense but each earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain return shape itself. It tells the agent that results come back per-task and that full=true expands them, but omits what a task record contains (status field values, IDs, timing) and whether listing is truncated, which matters for a status/polling 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 description coverage is only 33%: ids and full are documented nowhere in the schema, and the description compensates by explaining ids selects detail/results and full requests the full text. source_id is already documented in the schema, so all three parameters now have meaning, though ids' expected format (task IDs? opaque strings?) remains unstated.

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 states a verb and resource ('列出本聊天的任务') and explains the two modes (list vs. detail-by-ids), so the core action is clear. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like grok_collect or grok_wait, which plausibly also retrieve task results, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval path to take.

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 implicitly says when to use ids ('指定 ids 读取详情和结果') and when to use full ('full=true 返回全文'), which gives usable routing within the tool's own modes. It offers no guidance on when to prefer grok_status over grok_collect or grok_wait, and no exclusions or preconditions for an empty-parameter call.

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