grok_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool waits for turn completion and returns aggregated text plus a tool-call summary, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects on session state, potential long-running behavior, or how cancellation interacts with this wait, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every clause earns its place, and the optional includeThoughts flag is mentioned without unnecessary detail.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential return values and the wait-for-completion behavior. It could go further by mentioning prerequisites or cancellation, but the parameter schema fills in the sessionId origin, and the core call sequence is clear.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, describing each parameter clearly, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond referencing includeThoughts and the session context, which is acceptable but not especially enriching.

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 ('Send'), a clear resource (user prompt/session), and the expected outcome (return aggregated agent text plus a tool-call summary). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which handle session creation, loading, cancellation, or status rather than sending 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?

The description makes it clear this is the tool for sending a prompt and waiting for a completed turn, which implies you must already have a session from grok_session_create/load. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse it with session management tools.

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