Answer a Grok Bot question

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description needn't carry the safety profile. It adds useful context by saying it waits for the agent's reply by default, though it does not explain ambiguity handling or the exact side effect of submitting an answer.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action and input format, include a compact example, and state the default wait behavior without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the definition gives enough to call the tool correctly: the action, accepted choice format, and default wait behavior are all clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what is returned when wait_for_reply is false, leaving a minor gap.

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%, documenting all five parameters including choice format, agent matching, wait behavior, timeout, and quiet period. The description restates the choice format with examples but adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Click an option') and resource ('multiple-choice question an agent asked in Grok Bot'), with an example and input format. It distinguishes itself from a general send_message action by scoping to multiple-choice prompts.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: when an agent has asked a multiple-choice question. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as send_message for free-form replies or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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