grok_task_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses non-blocking behavior and that listing includes persisted jobs from previous sessions. No contradictions. Could add more detail about response format or error handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no extraneous words. Highly efficient.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers both modes and the behavior across server sessions.

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 single parameter job_id is described in schema as optional. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting it lists all jobs, while providing it checks a specific job. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 checks status of grok_task jobs, with two distinct modes (single job by job_id, or list all jobs). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like grok_task (creation), grok_task_cancel, and grok_task_result.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: pass job_id for one job, omit to list all. It implies the tool is for non-blocking status checks without blocking. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, though context signals make alternatives clear.

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