grok_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the default git diff behavior and the effect of format parameter, but does not mention potential side effects like reading local files or the execution environment. The timeout parameter's purpose is only in the schema, not reinforced in the description.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, default behavior, and a key usage hint. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain what 'per-dimension review' means or what dimensions are reviewed. The 'focus' parameter is mentioned in schema but not elaborated. The 'model' parameter lacks any description, leaving the agent without guidance on model selection. This is incomplete for a tool with 7 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?

Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when diff is omitted and emphasizing the json format for CI, but does not significantly elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Have Grok review a git diff.' It specifies the verb (review), resource (git diff), and mentions the default behavior when diff is omitted. It distinguishes from siblings like grok_chat and grok_consult, which are conversational rather than code-review focused.

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 explicitly advises when to use format='json' for CI gating, which provides clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different to imply appropriate use.

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