List Grok Bots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. "Sends nothing" adds domain-specific value beyond that: for a bridge tool that lists bots it *may contact*, it clarifies that merely listing does not initiate contact. It does not, however, describe the return shape, which matters since there is no output 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the scope of the listing is front-loaded and the side-effect clarification follows. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that, with no output schema, it never indicates what the list contains (names, IDs, contact status), leaving the return shape to inference.

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 the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior the description needs to compensate for.

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 a specific verb ("List") and a precise resource ("the Grok Bots this bridge may contact and the ones already contacted"), including the scope of what is listed. This is inherently distinguishable from the sibling verbs check, ask, and interrupt, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus grokbot_check or grokbot_ask, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The only contextual hint is "Sends nothing," which describes side effects rather than selection criteria.

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