grok_consult

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavior: stateless server, caller owns thread, and replaying full history. This is valuable for agent understanding, though it omits potential rate limits or auth requirements.

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 no fluff. First sentence states purpose and mechanism; second clarifies statelessness. Every word 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the state model and usage. Minor gaps include lack of response format or error handling, but these are acceptable.

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 50% (messages has a description, model does not). The tool description repeats the messages behavior ('Caller maintains state') but adds no meaning for the model parameter. It fails to compensate for the 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?

The description states 'Continue a conversation with Grok' with clear verb and resource. It adds context on statelessness and caller-managed history. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like grok_chat.

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 multi-turn conversations by requiring full message history, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No exclusion criteria given.

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