grok inspect

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' largely restates that. It does add one constraint beyond the annotations – that the root must be allowlisted – but discloses nothing about what the inspection covers, its cost, or its failure modes.

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?

Two brief sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause carries signal.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema absent but annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is minimally adequate. It tells the agent it emits JSON and requires an allowlisted root, but never explains what an 'inspect' actually reports, which is the main gap.

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 100%, so the single repo_root parameter is already documented as 'Allowlisted project root to inspect'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific action and resource ('Run `grok inspect --json`') and scopes it to an allowlisted project root, so the agent knows this runs a diagnostic inspection. It does not explicitly differentiate from look-alike siblings such as grok_delegate_doctor or grok_agent_project, so it falls short of a 5.

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 named alternatives among the many grok_* siblings. The only implicit cue is 'Read-only', which signals safety rather than a selection condition.

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