grok_code_review

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.