grok_delegate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait (no write/edit/shell mutation, aligning with the schema's plan_only const=true). But it omits the async workflow — that this spawns a session to be polled via grok_delegate_poll — and says nothing about what it returns, which is significant for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentences with zero waste, and the defining constraint (read-only plan variant) is front-loaded. It is structurally efficient, though arguably thin for a 20-parameter tool — this is brevity rather than under-specification.

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 highly complex 20-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, one sentence is inadequate. The description fails to disclose the async interaction model (session spawning and polling via grok_delegate_poll) and the return shape, leaving an agent to guess the full workflow despite rich schema descriptions.

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 95%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all 20 parameters, including nuanced behavioral notes like lane_verdict's run-end semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but at this coverage the baseline of 3 holds.

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?

Identifies the tool as the read-only plan variant of grok_delegate with plan_only=true, explicitly distinguishing it from the mutation-capable sibling via the write/edit/shell restriction. The verb is implicit rather than explicit (what plan output looks like is unstated), but the resource and its defining scope are clear.

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?

Naming the parent grok_delegate and stressing the read-only role implies when to reach for this tool (planning without mutation). However, there are no explicit exclusions or criteria — e.g., it never says 'use grok_delegate when you need to execute changes' — so the routing is left to inference.

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