review_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses READ-ONLY status, confirms no file mutations, and specifies that Grok runs without --always-approve and with write/shell tools disabled, providing critical safety expectations.

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 'READ-ONLY,' and contains no filler. Every clause adds meaningful context, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only review tool with six schema-documented parameters, the description provides the essential behavioral safety context and sibling differentiation. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by schema-documented background/job_id behavior, making the description sufficient and complete.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function as asking Grok to analyze code, review a plan/diff, or answer questions without mutating files. It explicitly differentiates from execute_task, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 instructs the agent to prefer this tool before execute_task, and explains that Grok runs without write/shell tools enabled. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a direct alternative.

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