grok_delegate_inspect

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly states 'Read-only' and the 'allowlisted' prerequisite, which are valuable behavioral traits. It could add more about output format or error behavior, but for a simple read tool, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the command, zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the action and the '--json' flag implies JSON output. It could explicitly mention return values, but the command name provides enough context.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states 'Allowlisted project root to inspect.' The description repeats the same constraint without adding new semantics, so it doesn't go beyond the schema.

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 tool runs `grok inspect --json` for an allowlisted project root, which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on inspection rather than starting, polling, or canceling delegates.

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 implies usage through the tool name and 'allowlisted' constraint, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No mention of when to inspect vs. use status or doctor tools.

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