Check a Codex task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read operation, lists the fields the caller will see, and clarifies the list-all behavior when taskId is omitted. For a read-only status tool, this is sufficient even without detailed side-effect or rate-limit notes.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation and the full set of returned state fields; the second provides the polling trigger and the list-all variant. Every sentence 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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all essential context: what is inspected, what fields will be returned, when to poll, and how to list all tasks. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call this tool is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains that taskId is the task to inspect and that omitting it lists all known tasks. The description repeats this omission behavior without adding new syntactic or format details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: the current state of a delegated Codex task. It enumerates exactly what state is returned (status, model, reasoning effort, changed files, commands run, plan, diff, worktree, checkpoints, timestamps), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_delegate or codex_interrupt.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Poll this when codex_delegate returned status running.' It also explains the omit-taskId behavior for listing all tasks. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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