Grok Job Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'Read', implying idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It lacks details about what happens if the job does not exist or how recent the data is.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is too brief and lacks structure. It could be expanded to include key details without becoming verbose. The sentence earns its place but misses opportunities to add value.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., job status, progress). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response format. For a simple read tool, completeness is lacking.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. There are two parameters (cwd and jobId) with no meaning added beyond the schema's type and required flag. The description should clarify, for example, the format of jobId or the role of cwd.

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 'Read a background Grok job record', which uses a specific verb and resource. However, 'background Grok job record' is somewhat generic; a job status is implied. It distinguishes from sibling tools like grok_run or grok_cancel, but could be more explicit about what a 'job record' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like grok_check or grok_result, there is no context about the typical workflow or conditions under which grok_status should be called first.

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