grok_agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and enumerates the specific status categories it reports. However, it does not disclose potential blocking behavior, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which would be valuable for a status tool. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that packs in specific details without waste. It is front-loaded with the status categories and concludes with 'Read-only.' While the list is a bit terse and could be more readable, it is efficient and every term adds value. A small deduction for the slightly cryptic 'exact roots' phrase.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of information. It lists the various status areas but does not describe the return format, potential output structure, or any error/edge-case behavior. For a status tool, it covers the core scope but lacks detail that would help an agent fully anticipate the response. A description that explained the output format or provided usage context would be more complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to compensate for, and the description's focus on the status categories is sufficient.

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 tool as a status query, enumerating specific aspects: version/auth-presence, exact roots, transport router, daemon, and durable job status. The 'Read-only' tag further clarifies its non-mutating nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like grok_agent_start or grok_agent_cancel. It lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The 'Read-only' label is helpful but does not constitute usage guidance, and there is no reference to sibling tools like grok_agent_poll or grok_delegate_status.

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