Start Grok Builder

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it states the job is durable and background, may edit files/run commands in cwd, and requires polling. These specifics align with the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the verb and core purpose, with no fluff or redundancy. Every sentence adds value (purpose, side effects, workflow).

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 description covers the essential workflow, safety, and return via job_id, but given no output schema and 9 parameters, it omits details about optional parameters and the meaning of 'terminal.' It is sufficient for a basic agent but not fully complete for complex usage.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 22%, the description must compensate but only touches on cwd ('inside cwd') and role (via 'implementation, debugging, testing, or review'). It does not explain parameters like effort, model, max_turns, web_search, timeout_seconds, or resume_session_id, leaving them ambiguous.

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 uses the verb 'Start' to indicate an action, specifies the resource as 'durable background Grok job,' and lists intended purposes (implementation, debugging, testing, review). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like grok_consult or grok_poll.

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 provides clear context that this is for long-running background jobs and advises polling the job_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as grok_consult for shorter interactions. No when-not guidance is given.

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