codex_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description goes beyond by explaining nuances: 'never inferred' for next_workstream, null for legacy/missing, DRAINED consumes no executor slot, and COMPLETED means manual/bridge policy closure. This adds rich behavioral context and is consistent with 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently packs multiple status semantics into a few sentences without fluff. It could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return fields and their meanings comprehensively, including edge cases like legacy/v1 behavior and the 'never inferred' rule. It covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs to interpret results correctly, making it complete for a status tool.

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 input schema has a single required task_id with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions task_id, its format, or its semantics. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it does not address the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's format field alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('persisted task') with detailed fields (execution_status, execution_binding, closure_status, etc.). It clearly identifies the tool's function and its scope is distinct from siblings by focusing on codex task status, making it easy to select appropriately.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides contextual meaning of statuses (e.g., DRAINED, COMPLETED) which aids understanding, but it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Usage is implied by the name and the fact that it returns status details, not explicit guidance.

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