Check a Grok Bot

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld; the description adds blocking-wait semantics, the fact that a "running" status may be returned when no reply arrives, retry/backoff advice, and a prompt-injection warning that the reply is untrusted data. These are behaviors an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the usage trigger, then the safety caveat. No filler; every sentence carries operational weight.

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?

Covers calling context and safety, but with no output schema it never describes the shape of a successful reply (fields returned, how to tell a reply from a status). Minor gap for a polling tool whose whole job is returning data.

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 both agent and wait_seconds are already documented. The description references wait_seconds and the wait behavior but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (read replies since last ask/check) with the scope qualifier of waiting up to wait_seconds. An agent can immediately distinguish this polling/read tool from grokbot_ask, grokbot_interrupt and grokbot_list.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ('after grokbot_ask returned status "running"', or when the Bot only acknowledged) plus an explicit anti-pattern ('Do not poll in a tight loop'). This is when-to-use, when-not, and named alternative behavior all in one place.

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