Consult Grok

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'synchronous' and 'uses xhigh reasoning by default,' which are useful behavioral details beyond what annotations provide. It also reiterates 'cannot edit files,' reinforcing the read-only nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a key behavioral note. Every phrase adds value—there is no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not hint at what the tool returns or how the response is structured. It provides enough context to use the tool but leaves significant gaps about the result format and error behavior.

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 22%, with most parameters undocumented. The description does not explain the meaning or usage of the parameters beyond mentioning the default effort ('xhigh reasoning'), which is already present in the schema. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('Grok second opinion') and scope ('synchronous, read-only'), with explicit use cases (planning, research, analysis, code review). It distinguishes from sibling tools like grok_start and grok_poll by emphasizing synchronous behavior.

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 clearly implies the intended use case (a one-off, synchronous consultation) and contrasts with the asynchronous workflow implied by sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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