composer_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers thoroughly. It discloses non-blocking dispatch, that the parent does not wait, completion semantics with exit codes (0/3/4), no polling, no fallback to Grok, and environment/settings sharing. It also covers agent injection details and read-only sandbox support, leaving little behavior implicit.

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 long and dense, but it is front-loaded with the most important routing information and every sentence adds operational value. Some points are reiterated for emphasis, and the density makes it harder to parse quickly, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations.

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?

The description covers the full lifecycle: launch, parameter handling, async dispatch, completion notification via another process API, exit-code interpretation, result retrieval through pty_read, and error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value details need not be in the description. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, especially for model (validated against live catalog with explicit error, no fallback), reasoning_effort (CLI/model-dependent), and the async dispatch relationship between prompt and pty_send. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 function: launching the Grok Build Composer model on a persistent terminal. It also explicitly identifies itself as a legacy-compatibility alias and names agent_launch as the replacement, distinguishing it from sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 says to use agent_launch for new integrations, reserving composer_agent for legacy compatibility. It further explains the full usage flow: send turns via pty_send, receive completion via wait_process, retrieve results via pty_read, and avoid polling or foreground execution. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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