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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions a limit of 5 findings, leaving unclear whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or how background execution (parameter 'background') affects behavior. Essential safety details are missing.

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 of 12 words, front-loading the action and key constraint ('at most 5 findings'). Every word carries weight; it is maximally concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 no output schema, 12 parameters, and the complexity of invoking an external binary, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes a 'failure-mode review,' how findings are presented, error handling, or how parameters like 'background' or 'model' affect behavior. Much needed context is absent.

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 high (92%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the overall purpose, but the schema already documents most parameters well. The description does not compensate for the uncovered ~8% or enrich parameter meanings.

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 asks Grok for a 'bounded failure-mode review with at most 5 findings,' specifying a distinct verb ('Ask') and resource type. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'grok_review' by emphasizing boundedness and failure-mode focus.

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 adversarial or security-related failure analysis, and the 'bounded' qualifier hints at scenarios needing limited findings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like 'grok_review' or 'grok_run', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but omits side effects (e.g., whether the job is terminated or can be resumed), permission requirements, or impact on other jobs.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure and fails to include critical details. It earns a middle score for brevity without completeness.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover prerequisites, return behavior, or error conditions.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain 'cwd' or how to obtain 'jobId,' leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Cancel' and the resource 'a running background Grok job,' which is distinct from sibling tools like grok_run or grok_status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention whether cancel requires the job to be running or if it works on queued jobs.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authentication needs. The actions described (run, detect) imply reading but are not explicitly stated.

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 but lacks structure. It fails to prioritize key information or provide a clear summary upfront.

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, no output schema, and 12 sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior, what the output is, or how this tool fits into the broader toolset.

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 83% schema description coverage, the schema already describes most parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so a baseline 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 lists specific actions (Discover CLI, run version, detect model availability), but it is vague about the overall purpose and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like grok_models, which also deals with model detection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grok_models or grok_run. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions command-line flags without explaining side effects, return values, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for a tool with 14 parameters.

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 that is concise but lacks structure. Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters), it could include more organized information such as usage patterns or prerequisites without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not cover return behavior, error conditions, or whether the session runs synchronously. This incompleteness leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is high (79%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by clarifying that '--continue' should be used only when explicitly requested, likely referring to the 'continueLatest' parameter. However, many parameters remain unaddressed, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: continuing a Grok session, using '--resume <sessionId>' or '--continue'. It distinguishes from likely sibling 'grok_run' (which starts a new session) through the verb 'continue', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 specifies using '--resume <sessionId>' or '--continue' only when explicitly requested, giving some usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or references to alternative tools like 'grok_run' for new sessions.

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

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

The description reveals that the tool wraps a shell command and returns stdout as Markdown, and mentions an optional output file. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens in error cases. Given no annotations, this is moderately transparent.

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 that efficiently conveys the core function. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more 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?

Given the 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal completeness. It explains the default return behavior but omits details like error handling or default values for optional parameters.

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 input schema already covers 60% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 exports a Grok session and returns Markdown. The verb 'export' and resource 'Grok session' are specific, but it does not distinguish from siblings like 'grok_run' or 'grok_result'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not provide context for when exporting is appropriate or mention any prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Return', which weakly implies a read operation, but fails to explain side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or other important behaviors for a tool with many parameters.

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 extremely short but under-specifies the tool. It lacks necessary detail, making it more inadequate than concise.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain return values, parameter interactions, or how the raw/parsed outputs differ.

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 91%, so the schema already describes parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Return raw and parsed grok models output' is vague. While the title suggests listing models, the description does not clearly state that it lists available models, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like grok_run or grok_check.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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

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.

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

The description indicates a read operation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error states (e.g., job not found), or limits. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it is overly brief and omits critical information, making it less effective despite being short.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, what 'parsed outputSummary' entails, or how maxChars affects results, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 of the three parameters (cwd, jobId, maxChars). It provides no semantic meaning beyond what the schema's property names imply.

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 'Read' and resources 'stdout/stderr tails' and 'parsed outputSummary' for a background Grok job. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like grok_run or grok_status by specifying it retrieves results.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grok_status or grok_check. The description does not mention prerequisites like job completion or that this should be used after grok_run.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'bounded findings-first review' without explaining side effects, authorization needs, output format, or whether the tool runs synchronously or in background.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, but could benefit from additional context without losing efficiency.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral transparency. The description fails to explain return values, execution behavior, or how to use the results, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 high (92%), so by baseline, the description need not detail parameters. However, the description adds no context about parameter significance or defaults, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 'Ask Grok for a bounded findings-first review' and provides an example target ('the current diff'). It distinguishes the tool as a review tool among siblings, but the term 'bounded findings-first' may not be universally clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use grok_review versus sibling tools like grok_check, grok_run, or grok_adversarial_review. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions foreground and background modes but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens during execution. Minimal behavioral context beyond schema.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource. Perfectly concise.

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?

With 12 parameters (though well-documented in schema), no output schema, and no mention of how to retrieve results or handle background jobs, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on output format, result retrieval via sibling tools, and error handling.

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 coverage is 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what schema provides; the background mode is implied but not elaborated. Baseline 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 action (run) and resource (Grok prompt), and distinguishes between foreground JSON mode and background streaming-json mode, which differentiates it from sibling 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 implies two modes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use each mode or when to prefer this tool over siblings like grok_continue or grok_check. No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions returning raw output, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Lack of behavioral detail.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but lacks structure. It could be improved with sections or bullet points. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a session is, what raw output contains, or how parameters affect behavior.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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?

Description states it wraps grok sessions list/search and returns raw output, but it's ambiguous whether it lists, searches, or both. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like grok_status or grok_check.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or use cases.

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

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.