Grok Rescue

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It clearly communicates that the tool is read-only and provides a 'minimal path forward,' indicating no destructive actions. It does not elaborate on behaviors like background execution or timeouts (covered in parameters), but the core behavioral trait is well-disclosed.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or extraneous words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 12 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., text diagnosis) or how 'minimal path forward' is structured. For a crisis-oriented tool ('rescue'), more context on expected output or success criteria would be beneficial. Adequate but with gaps.

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 92%, so the schema already documents 11 of 12 parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for the 8% undocumented parameter (timeoutMs lacks a description in schema) nor adds extra meaning.

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 purpose: 'Ask Grok for an independent read-only diagnosis and minimal path forward.' It uses a specific verb ('Ask'), a specific resource ('Grok'), and qualifies the interaction as read-only and minimal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like grok_run (full execution) or grok_review (comprehensive review).

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 implies usage for quick, safe diagnosis without modifications ('read-only'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given the context of siblings, the guidance is clear enough but lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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