grok_agent_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature and the transport-specific 'auto' behavior, but it omits side effects, required permissions, return value format, and lifecycle behavior (e.g., how to obtain a task handle for polling).

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 sentence packs the core purpose and transport semantics without wasted words. The information is densely stated and front-loaded.

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 task schema, three parameters, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a task ID for polling), any prerequisites, or how to connect with grok_agent_poll/status. The description is too minimal for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by explaining 'auto means stdio only' for the transport param, but lane is completely unmentioned and the complex task packet structure is only vaguely referenced as 'typed task packet'.

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 identifies the action ('Asynchronously start'), the resource ('versioned typed task packet'), and the transport options ('legacy|stdio|websocket'). It distinguishes start from poll/status/cancel siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from execute/fix or consult variants.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., grok_agent_execute, grok_agent_fix, grok_agent_consult). The only usage detail is the clarification that 'auto means stdio only', which is a transport semantics note, not a when-to-use guide.

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