grok_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the iterative nature ('reviewer-driven correction retries'), budget caps ('cost_limit'), and retry caps ('max_iterations'). This gives good insight into behavior, though it does not mention permissions, side effects, or resource cleanup.

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 concise at one sentence plus parameter bullet points, and the key summary is front-loaded. It could be slightly trimmed, but it is well-structured and easy to read.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and the retry/budget mechanism. It is mostly complete, though it omits behavior when parameters are omitted or the response format.

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%, but the description compensates fully with detailed parameter explanations. Each parameter is described with its role and default, e.g., 'session: Optional session name for persistent history in chats' and 'max_iterations: Strict cap on reviewer-driven correction retries (default 5).' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default.

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 'Unified @grok Entry Point: run the thinking route — the ReAct AgentLoop wrapped in a schema-enforced reflection loop — with explicit retry and budget caps.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it as the main agent entry point for grok. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'agent', which may be a simpler agent loop.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use grok_agent over other tools like 'agent', 'chat', or 'stateful_chat'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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