grok_agent_fix

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the session is 'separate' and 'scoped,' but it never discloses that a 'fixer' session presumably mutates workspace files, whether it blocks or runs asynchronously, or how it relates to the session lifecycle. For a mutation-implying tool, the absence of side-effect warnings is a significant gap.

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 single 14-word sentence is efficiently written and front-loaded with the verb 'Start'; every word earns its place. However, relative to the tool's deeply nested schema and complete lack of parameter documentation, it is under-sized rather than appropriately sized.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a required nested `task` object with 18 properties, this description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to populate required task fields (objective, project_root, correlation_id, expected_artifacts, test_commands), or how this session connects to the session lifecycle siblings. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this text.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds one semantic link — mapping the required `task` object to the 'task packet' containing 'confirmed findings' — but leaves the other two parameters (lane, transport) and roughly 18 nested task properties completely unexplained. This does not meaningfully offset the coverage gap.

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 action — 'Start a separate workspace fixer session' — with a clear verb, resource, and scope ('scoped to confirmed findings in the task packet'). The words 'separate' and 'fixer' help distinguish it from consult/review/execute-style siblings, though it never names a specific alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. 'Scoped to confirmed findings' implies a precondition (findings must already be confirmed), but with 23 siblings there is no explanation of when to prefer this tool over grok_agent_execute, grok_agent_consult, or grok_agent_review. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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