codex-status

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the specific checks performed and clarifying that no model request is made, which is valuable beyond the annotations, though it does not describe the response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item contributes to explaining what the status check covers.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description gives enough scope to invoke it correctly. The main minor gap is that return values are not described and no output schema exists, but the enumerated checks provide sufficient operational 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies because the schema requires no compensation and the description introduces no misleading parameter behavior.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and a precise set of resources: Codex executable, compatibility, login state, fallback runtime, and active tasks. It is clearly a status/diagnostic tool rather than a task invocation tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like codex, codex-sessions, or codex-reply.

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 phrase 'without making a model request' implies this tool is for cheap diagnostics before invoking the model, but the description never states when to use it instead of siblings or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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