grok_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Today's ... usage ... against the daily limits' establishes a read-only, day-scoped snapshot with no mutation, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, does not mention rate limits, permissions, or whether the window resets at a specific time.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the exact metric list, with zero filler. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but readable.

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 zero-parameter query with no output schema, the description does the work the schema cannot: it enumerates the returned fields (image submissions, images generated/kept, videos) and the comparison basis (daily limits). Only the exact return shape and reset semantics remain unspecified, which is minor here.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the schema is empty and the description correctly adds no parameter claims. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 names the specific resource (Grok Imagine usage) and enumerates the metrics reported: image submissions, images generated/kept, and videos, all measured against daily limits. It is clearly a read-only quota-report tool, distinguishable in substance from grok_set_limits, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied – the 'against the daily limits' framing suggests checking quota before calling grok_generate_image or grok_generate_video, but the description never says when to use this versus grok_status or grok_settings, and offers no exclusions.

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