grok_delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It explicitly mentions the isolated git worktree, the grok/* branch, the lack of push/merge, and the dev-only scope. This is strong transparency for the core behavior, though it does not mention asynchronous execution, polling, or cleanup details, preventing a perfect score.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence carries meaningful information: what it does, what it returns, and what it deliberately does not do. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool's high complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the high-level purpose, return value, and key constraints. However, it omits important operational context such as whether the run is asynchronous, how results are obtained beyond branch+diffstat, or how the many schema flags affect behavior. The rich schema helps, but the description alone is not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all 19 parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: 'Delegate a coding goal to local headless grok in an isolated git worktree on a grok/* branch.' It also highlights the key output ('Returns branch + diffstat') and distinguishes itself from related delegate/agent tools by emphasizing the local, isolated, dev-only nature and the absence of push/merge behavior.

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?

The description provides useful usage context: 'Dev-only — not the product admin-bridge' and 'No push, no merge, no --always-approve' clearly indicate when not to use this tool and what operations it will not perform. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternative tools (e.g., grok_delegate_start, grok_delegate_poll) or state 'use X instead', so it falls short of a 5.

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