Agent status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description merely repeats 'Read-only' rather than adding to it. It does add value by enumerating the subsystems covered (daemon and durable job status, transport router), but says nothing about auth requirements, output shape, or rate limits.

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 short sentence with no filler, though it is dense with internal jargon ('transport router', 'exact roots') and the 'Read-only' clause is redundant with the annotations.

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 zero-param diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description should convey the shape of what comes back; it lists the reported components but not their format, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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 enumerates what status is reported (version/auth-presence, roots, transport router, daemon, durable job status), so the agent can infer this is a diagnostic dump tool. However there is no verb and no differentiation from the very similar sibling grok_delegate_status, leaving the exact scope ambiguous.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named despite an obvious overlapping sibling (grok_delegate_status) plus grok_agent_poll. The agent must guess when this is preferred.

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