Review diff

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this spins up external, non-repeatable, non-destructive work. The description adds only 'independent' and 'session' on top of that, and says nothing about whether the call blocks or returns a handle, how sessions are retrieved/ended (grok_agent_status/poll/end), timeouts, or model/permission behavior. The phrase 'read-only' is also in tension with readOnlyHint=false, though the main verb 'Start' describes a state-changing operation and 'read-only' plausibly characterizes the skeptic session's permission profile rather than the tool itself.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition; the core purpose is stated in the first few words. It is efficient, though for a tool of this complexity the brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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: a large nested task packet, enums for role/permission_profile/reasoning_effort, and no output schema to lean on. One vague sentence does not cover the required fields, the transport option, or what the caller receives back, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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% on a nested 'task' object with roughly eighteen undocumented properties (objective, project_root, correlation_id, lane, transport, permission_profile, etc.). The description only vaguely gestures at 'evidence/diff inputs', which at best hints at task.inputs/base_ref, and does not compensate for the near-total absence 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?

States a concrete verb ('Start') and a concrete resource ('independent ... skeptic session over supplied evidence/diff inputs'), and the word 'skeptic' maps to the role enum, implicitly separating it from the execute/fix/consult siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many grok_agent_* / grok_delegate_* siblings. Nothing states the prerequisites (a task packet containing objective, project_root and correlation_id) or when a user should pick this over grok_agent_execute or grok_agent_fix.

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