Grok MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read/write operation (sends prompts and saves history), handles session persistence ('replays prior turns... and saves the round trip'), and specifies model dependencies ('Only valid with grok-4.20-multi-agent'). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then explains session behavior, followed by a parameter-by-parameter breakdown in the Args section, and ends with return value information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, session management, model variations) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains the core functionality, parameters, return value, and session behavior. It could mention error cases or response format details, but for a chat tool without structured output schema, it's quite 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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'prompt' as the user message, 'session' for history loading/appending, 'model' with default value, 'system_prompt' for instruction prepending, and 'agent_count' with specific model dependency. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action: 'Send a text prompt to a Grok model and return its reply.' It distinguishes this from siblings like chat_with_files, chat_with_vision, and stateful_chat by focusing on basic text-only interaction without file attachments, vision capabilities, or advanced state management.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for sending text prompts to Grok models with optional session management. It mentions session handling and model selection but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like chat_with_files for file-based interactions, though the distinction is implied by the tool's focus.

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