grok_request

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower and no contradiction exists. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the synchronous execution mode, the auto-deferral to a pollable job past the sync deadline, and the exactly-one-of-prompt requirement. It does not detail output or failure behavior, but its added value over annotations justifies a 4.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste: core purpose front-loaded first, the async-deferral nuance second, and the mandatory requirement last. Every clause 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 56-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin. With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, yet it never states what the caller receives (raw output, parsed JSON, job reference, error behavior), nor does it address transport selection, the sync deadline value, or failure modes at the tool level. The schema covers parameters richly, but the high-level invocation contract is incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3 with the schema doing the heavy lifting. The description adds the 'exactly one of prompt or promptParts' constraint, but this mutual exclusion is already stated in both parameter descriptions. It introduces no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run an xAI Grok CLI request synchronously') and clarifies the execution mode. The provider (xAI Grok), the sync/async distinction, and the mandatory prompt/promptParts requirement sharply distinguish it from siblings like grok_request_async, claude_request, and the other provider request tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

Gives clear context on execution mode: the tool auto-defers to a pollable job past the sync deadline when async jobs are enabled, otherwise runs to completion. This effectively tells an agent when the call becomes async-like, but it never names grok_request_async as the explicit alternative for guaranteed-async cases, nor does it state when-not-to-use this tool. Clear context, no explicit exclusions.

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