grok_delegate_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and noting that it checks auth presence 'without reading auth.json,' which is a valuable nuance about avoiding sensitive file access. It also lists the categories of information returned, giving the agent a good expectation of what the tool does and doesn't do. Minor gaps: no mention of whether it makes local calls only, or potential permissions needed, but for a status 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Structured health status') and enumerates the covered areas in a compact list. It ends with 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety qualifier. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description needs to convey what the tool returns. It lists the major categories of health information, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't detail the exact output format or error handling, but for a simple read-only status-check with no parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It also includes the 'without reading auth.json' caveat, which is a crucial edge-case detail.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the (empty) invocation will report—health aspects like binary version, auth, git, roots, and permissions—which goes beyond an empty input schema. This helps the agent understand the tool's output even though it has no arguments.

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 defines the tool as a 'Structured health status' reporter, listing specific components (binary/version, auth presence, git availability, allowed roots/lanes_parent, permission and sandbox profile info). This is a specific resource and purpose, and it reads as a status/health check for the grok delegate system, distinguishable from sibling tools like grok_agent_status (agent-focused) and grok_delegate_doctor (diagnostic).

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 usage is implied: call this tool to get the current health/status of the grok delegate environment. The 'Read-only' qualifier suggests it is safe for routine inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like grok_agent_status or grok_delegate_doctor, nor does it provide exclusions. Without explicit guidance, the context is clear but not fully disambiguated from sibling tools.

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