grok_agent_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact: completion requires 'a real diff and requested evidence.' However, it does not mention side effects, asynchronous behavior, required permissions, workspace setup, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. Both sentences contribute value: the first states the operation and context, and the second states a completion requirement. The phrasing of 'completed requires a real diff and requested evidence' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 a large nested task object and no output schema, yet the description offers only minimal context. It does not explain how to construct a valid task, what happens after execution starts, whether results are returned or polled, or how completion is surfaced. For an execution tool of this complexity, the description is far from complete.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on the three top-level parameters (lane, task, transport) or the many nested task fields. It hints at some semantics through words like 'git worktree' and 'real diff,' but the description does not meaningfully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Start workspace execution in a git worktree.' This tells an agent what the tool does, and the completion condition adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like grok_agent_start or grok_agent_consult, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'Start workspace execution' implies a use case, and the completion condition is useful, but no alternative tools or conditions are mentioned.

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