grok_agent_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it writes a file when 'preset' is provided (implying a side effect) and that not having a config causes job tools to fail. However, it does not mention potential side effects of writing (e.g., overwriting existing config, file creation behavior, or error handling if file is invalid). The absence of annotations makes this a moderate gap, but the description covers the key behavioral nuance of the read vs. write distinction.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core function and then providing essential usage context. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes the dual read/write behavior and lists valid preset values; the second gives a concrete usage trigger. No unnecessary fluff.

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 only 3 parameters and an array of sibling job tools, the description is fairly complete. It covers the dual behavior, the trigger for use, and the effect of not having a config. It does not describe the return format, but with no output schema and the tool being a configuration reader, this is acceptable. The only minor gap is the lack of details on what happens after writing (e.g., does it return a success status?), but this is not critical for invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaning for two of the three parameters: 'preset' is explained as the value to write, and 'project_root' is implied as the project location. The 'note' parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its semantics are intuitive given the schema (maxLength 500 suggests a comment). The description compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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 tool reads or writes the project's Grok preset configuration, with distinct behavior depending on whether the 'preset' parameter is provided. It mentions specific values ('off, cheap, standard, max') and clarifies this is a config file operation, distinguishing it from sibling job tools like 'start', 'execute', and 'poll'.

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 explicitly states when to call this tool: 'call this first when they report PROJECT_NOT_ENABLED'. It explains the consequence of not having a config (job tools refuse) and differentiates the two modes (read vs. write) based on parameter presence. This gives clear actionable guidance for an agent.

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