get_codex_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait — no agent turn is consumed, so the call is side-effect-free relative to conversation state — but says nothing about permissions, cost, caching, or freshness of the quota data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the key constraint are packed into one clause and nothing is repeated.

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 no-arg, no-output-schema discovery tool, naming the three returned categories (models, supported efforts, account quota) plus the no-agent-turn behavior covers what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain, such as how current the quota information is.

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 per the baseline rule parameter semantics default to 4. The description correctly implies a pure lookup with no inputs to configure.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Codex's current models, supported efforts and account quota'), naming exactly what is returned. The qualifier 'without an agent turn' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling ask_codex, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 an agent turn' hints that this is the cheap, non-conversational lookup versus ask_codex, but the description never states when to prefer it or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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