Bridge status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds key behavioral details: 'auth.json never read' (privacy), and it enumerates what is checked (grok binary/version, auth presence, git, allowed roots/lanes_parent, permission and sandbox profile). It also self-declares 'Read-only' which is redundant with annotations, but the enumeration adds value.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and usage trigger. The enumeration is compact. No filler. Could be slightly tighter, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no-param, read-only diagnostic tool with annotations, the description covers what it reports and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the shape or format of the health report. For a diagnostic tool, users might expect details on how to interpret results, but the core info is present. Adequate but with a 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none. No further semantic details are needed.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Report bridge health'. This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like grok_agent_status. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling 'grok_delegate_doctor' which likely serves a similar diagnostic purpose.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions: 'before the first job or when a job fails to start'. These are concrete triggers. There's no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit routing to grok_delegate_doctor, which may overlap.

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