grok_agent_consult

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: the session is isolated and read-only, and it supports non-git exact allowlisted roots. But it does not explain lifecycle behavior, whether results are polled, session cleanup, or what happens on failure.

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 description is a single sentence and front-loads the core action and safety property. It is concise, though the 'non-git exact allowlisted roots' phrase is jargon-heavy and reduces clarity.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested objects, many interlocking fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description leaves out the entire invocation model, the meaning of task fields, session lifecycle, and how this relates to the sibling session/delegate tools.

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 0% and the task object contains over 20 undocumented properties, so the description must compensate. It does not explain lane, transport, role, permission_profile, project_root, or any other parameter. The only oblique reference is 'non-git exact allowlisted roots', which does not map clearly to a schema field.

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 clearly states the action ('Start') and the resource ('an isolated read-only consult session'), and the read-only framing differentiates it from execute/fix siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with grok_agent_start or grok_agent_session_begin, and 'non-git exact allowlisted roots' is cryptic.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings (execute, fix, start, session_begin, delegate). The read-only language implies a consultation use case, but no alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.

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