grok_codex_provider_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only discloses that secrets are not exposed, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. A more thorough description of what 'readiness' entails would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Given there are no parameters or output schema, the description is functionally complete but lacks detail about the expected response. An agent would benefit from knowing what 'credentials and readiness' status looks like (e.g., 'returns a JSON object with status fields'). A score of 3 is appropriate as a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the guidelines, baseline with 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 verb 'check' and target 'credentials and readiness', and hints at safety ('without exposing secrets'). It is sufficiently specific to distinguish from other tools like grok_codex_doctor or grok_codex_login_status, though no explicit sibling differentiation is made.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding among multiple sibling tools.

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