grok_codex_consent_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool reads state and cannot grant consent, but does not explain what the consent state means, what values it returns, or whether it is idempotent. This is insufficient for a read-only tool with no annotations.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. The key point 'Read explicit-consent state' is front-loaded, and the restriction 'Cannot grant consent' is immediately stated.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a status string). For a read tool with no parameters, the return value is critical for the agent to interpret the result. This is a significant gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since none exist. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 reads the explicit-consent state and cannot grant consent. It uses a specific verb 'read' and resource 'explicit-consent state', and distinguishes from any tool that might modify consent.

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 indicates it is used to read consent state and not to grant consent, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus sibling tools like grok_codex_login_status or grok_codex_provider_status. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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