grok_consult

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the key behavioral trait: stateless server, caller responsible for maintaining state. It clearly indicates that full message history is replayed each call. However, it omits details on response format, error handling, or limits.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word is necessary and informative, capturing the essence without redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., an assistant message). It also lacks context on error conditions, token limits, or comparisons to sibling tools. This makes it incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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 provides good descriptions for 'messages' and 'timeout' (67% coverage). The tool description does not add parameter-specific info beyond the schema, and the 'model' parameter lacks any description, leaving a 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 specifies the tool's purpose: continuing a conversation with Grok by replaying full message history. It distinguishes the tool's stateless approach but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like grok_chat or grok_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions statelessness and caller-owned state, but does not compare to siblings or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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