Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• grok_continueC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the two continuation modes but does not disclose behavioral traits like session state mutation, rate limits, or data persistence. It lacks details on side effects of continuing a session.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains two modes. Zero wasted words, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations) and presence of an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not define what a 'headless session' is, how to obtain a session ID, or what the output contains. It assumes prior knowledge, leaving the agent underinformed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters1/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'resume' parameter and implies a '--continue' behavior, but fails to describe the other 8 parameters including the required 'prompt'. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: continuing a Grok headless session. It specifies two modes (resume or --continue), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like grok_ask, but the purpose is clear enough.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description explains two usage scenarios (resume a specific session or continue the most recent) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like grok_ask. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

• grok_askB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It only mentions a 'new headless CLI session' but omits behavioral traits like session handling, timeout behavior, authentication needs, or raw output characteristics.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence that is concise but lacks structure. It could be expanded with a brief example or key options without losing conciseness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity (9 parameters) and presence of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't highlight common use cases or important parameters, but combined with schema it is acceptable for a straightforward prompting tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema; it does not explain parameters like model, rules, or raw_output.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Ask', the resource 'Grok', and the context 'new headless CLI session'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like grok_continue (which implies continuation) and grok_code_review.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like grok_continue or grok_code_review. The phrase 'new headless CLI session' hints at one-shot usage, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

• grok_code_reviewA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: sends strict rules, disables web search, uses `--prompt-file` for large prompts. This adds value beyond a simple verb definition and helps the agent understand the tool's operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and context, every sentence serves a purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given 10 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers core purpose, usage order, and behavioral quirks. It could mention error handling or quotas, but the schema and output schema compensate well.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds some context (e.g., 'passes large prompts via `--prompt-file`'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description clearly states it is a strict second-opinion code review tool, distinguishing it from siblings like general Q&A (grok_ask) or continuation (grok_continue). It specifies verb 'Ask Grok for... code review' and resource 'code_or_diff'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explicitly says 'intended to run after CodeHelper or manual analysis', providing clear context for when to use it. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools imply alternatives (e.g., grok_ask for general questions).

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

• grok_versionA
  4.7/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  Description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns the installed version. No annotations are present, but the description covers all relevant aspects (read-only, no side effects). For a tool of this simplicity, transparency is complete.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and avoids any unnecessary words. Every part of the description is meaningful and concise.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated) and zero parameters, the description is complete. It suffices for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage without ambiguity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter descriptions are needed. Description does not add anything beyond the schema, but baseline for 0 params is 4.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Tool name 'grok_version' and description 'Return the installed Grok CLI version' clearly identify the verb (Return) and resource (Grok CLI version). It is distinct from sibling tools like grok_ask, grok_code_review, and grok_continue.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, the simple nature of a version check and the sibling tools' different purposes make usage obvious. Could be improved by mentioning that it requires no arguments and is safe to call anytime.

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