grok_delegate_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is 'Read-only' and 'no secrets', covering safety and auth behavior. While it doesn't describe the output format, this is minimal for a simple list operation and adequate for agent decision-making.

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 two short clauses: 'List available models via `grok models`' and 'Read-only; no secrets.' Every word contributes meaningful information with no redundancy, and the primary action 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 parameterless, read-only tool, the description covers what it does, its safety profile, and auth requirements. It doesn't explicitly connect to the delegation workflow, but the tool name and sibling context provide sufficient background. Slightly more context about return values would improve it, but it's not a major gap.

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, so the input schema fully covers everything. The description isn't required to add parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies to parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('available models') while referencing the concrete command `grok models`. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on delegation actions like starting or polling.

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 clear context: use when you need to list available models. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's distinct purpose among the siblings makes the intended usage obvious without needing further guidance.

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