Poll Grok Job

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by explaining that polling should continue while the job is queued/running and that log tails are bounded, which helps the agent understand the expected call pattern.

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 a compact two-sentence summary that front-loads the core action and provides essential polling guidance without any fluff.

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 simple read/poll tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the key behavior (what is read, when to poll). It could mention return values in more detail, but there is no output schema, and the description gives enough to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It mentions 'bounded log tails' but doesn't explicitly connect it to max_chars, and job_id is only implied. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema constraints.

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 identifies the tool as a read operation for background Grok jobs, specifying that it retrieves state, final result, and bounded log tails. It distinguishes itself from siblings like grok_start and grok_cancel by focusing on polling an existing job's status.

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 provides clear usage context: poll repeatedly while the job state is queued or running. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling names (e.g., grok_list, grok_cancel) and the polling nature make the intended use clear.

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