codex_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that passing cursor returns only new output since the last query, and that waitMs enables long polling up to 30 seconds. This provides meaningful behavioral context about incremental retrieval and polling behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the '查询' wording implies read-only intent, and for a status tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second succinctly explains the two optional parameters' behavior. There is no redundant or filler content, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly (jobId, cursor, waitMs) but does not explain the return value structure, possible statuses, or how to detect completion. Given the complexity of a status/reply tool and the absence of output schema, this is a notable gap. The description could be more complete by indicating what the response contains or how to interpret statuses, but it is minimally viable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for cursor and waitMs by explaining their semantics (incremental output and long polling duration), which are not apparent from the schema alone. jobId is not described explicitly, but its role is self-evident as the task identifier. The description adds significant meaning for two of the three parameters, making the tool more usable.

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's purpose: '查询 Codex 任务状态和已经收到的助手答复' (query Codex task status and already received assistant replies). This is a specific verb (query) and resource (task status + replies), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_start, codex_cancel, and codex_pending_input by focusing on status retrieval. The additional details about cursor and waitMs further clarify its role as a polling mechanism.

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 (querying status and replies, especially with incremental updates or long polling), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like codex_pending_input or codex_review. There are no exclusions or explicit recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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