grok_reflect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating read-only. The description adds that the tool is 'tool-free', cannot invoke local tools, and degrades explicitly if structured parsing is unavailable, providing transparency beyond 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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, including usage guidance and behavioral notes.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description covers purpose, usage, and limitations. However, it lacks parameter semantics, which is a gap for a tool with four parameters and zero schema descriptions.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not mention any of the four parameters (subject, model, context, criteria). It only describes the tool's overall behavior, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 the verb 'Run a structured, tool-free Grok review' and identifies the resource as 'an artifact or plan'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'agent' by specifying 'rather than a full agent run' and noting the tool cannot invoke local tools.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'when a client needs a deterministic critique shape rather than a full agent run'. It also implies when not to use (full agent runs) and warns about the lack of local tools and degradation when structured parsing is unavailable.

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