grok_delegate_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Read-only' and outputs 'diagnostic JSON', which are essential safety traits. It also explicitly warns against 'doctor fix', implying the fix variant could be mutating. It does not go into depth about auth or rate limits, but for a zero-param diagnostic, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a parenthetical command, a negation warning, and an output descriptor. Every phrase earns its place, and the most critical information (the exact command) is 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is almost complete. It tells the agent what command to run, that it's read-only, and the output format. It lacks detail on what specific diagnostics are included, but given the lack of output schema and the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (there are none), but it does clarify that the command is run with --json, which is part of the tool's behavior rather than a schema parameter. No deductions 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?

The description clearly states the exact action ('Run `grok doctor --json`') and the resource ('grok doctor'), with a specific output format ('diagnostic JSON'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly excluding 'doctor fix', making the purpose 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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: run this read-only diagnostic command only, never the fix variant. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusion of 'doctor fix' serves as a usage boundary, which is strong guidance for a tool with zero parameters.

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