grok_agent_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'read-only' but doesn't explain asynchronous session handling, return format, side effects, or required follow-up (e.g., polling). This is incomplete for a session-starting 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by clearly stating the core functionality.

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?

Given the complex nested schema (task with many properties), no output schema, and minimal description, an agent lacks critical invocation context. The one-liner is inadequate for the complexity and potential side effects of starting a session.

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%, and the description only vaguely references 'evidence/diff inputs'. It doesn't explain the nested 'task' object, 'lane', 'transport', or other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states 'Start an independent read-only skeptic session over supplied evidence/diff inputs' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like grok_agent_start or grok_agent_consult by emphasizing 'read-only' and 'skeptic'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like grok_agent_consult or grok_agent_execute. It doesn't mention polling, cancellation, or any specific context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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