List Grok Bot agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is structurally covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a connectivity probe for the desktop app and reports the currently open chat. It does not describe error behavior or response shape, but it adds meaningful operational context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the key operational instruction. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries most of the burden for explaining what comes back. It identifies the returned entities (agents/Bots in the sidebar) and the open-chat state, and it explains the tool's role as a reachability check. It could say more about the shape of the result, but it is sufficient for a simple read-only discovery tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the agents (Bots) in the Grok Bot desktop app sidebar, and which chat is open.' It clearly distinguishes the resource and scope from siblings like read_messages and send_message, which operate on messages rather than the agent list. An agent can tell immediately what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this first to check that the app is reachable.' That tells the agent when this tool is appropriate as a prerequisite or connectivity check. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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