grok_agent

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

The description is exceptionally transparent about behavior: it shares HOME/cwd/env, owns only completion-state, injects delegation metadata, sends turns via pty_send as non-blocking, does not wait, defines exit codes (0/3/4), states no polling needed, and explains how to collect results via pty_read. This goes far beyond any annotations, which are absent.

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 information-dense but long and sprawling, packed into one continuous paragraph with mixed Japanese and technical details. While every sentence carries meaningful behavioral info, the lack of clear segmentation or prioritization makes it harder for an agent to quickly extract the key points. Not concise enough nor well-structured for maximum clarity.

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?

With an output schema present and parameters fully documented in the schema, the description provides extensive behavioral context: lifecycle, delegation, completion signaling, exit codes, and result retrieval. It even addresses compatibility and alternatives. Nothing critical for a caller is missing, making this complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all 9 parameters. The description mentions model/reasoning_effort can be specified and that env_vars are inherited, but this mostly restates schema info without adding deeper meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it launches Grok Build's Grok model conversational agent TUI into a persistent terminal, identifying the verb and resource. It also clearly differentiates itself as an old-compatibility alias for agent_launch, which helps distinguish it from siblings, though the alias framing adds a bit of ambiguity about its intended use.

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 '旧互換alias。新規連携は agent_launch(harness=grok-cli)' meaning new integrations should use agent_launch instead, which provides clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also describes how to interact with the launched agent (via pty_send, no waiting, completion notifications), though it does not contrast with other sibling agent tools beyond agent_launch.

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