codex_status

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it explicitly warns that quota is unknown so the agent should not depend on that field, and it preempts a likely misuse by stating no inference is performed. It stops short of describing the shape or freshness of the status 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant caveat (no inference) is placed last for emphasis. The opening clause is a compressed noun stack ('Codex setup, queue, model and quota status') that reads slightly telegraphic, and 'Quota is unknown' could be clearer about whether it is unknown to the tool or to the caller.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status probe with no output schema, the description covers what categories of information come back and flags the one unreliable field. The absence of any note on cost, latency, or why openWorldHint is set is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly does not waste words restating the empty input object.

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?

Names the resource and the specific facets reported: setup, queue, model and quota status. It is a noun list rather than a verb+resource phrasing, but it is unambiguous about what the call returns. It only implicitly differentiates from siblings (codex_job_result, codex_cancel) via the caveat that it performs no inference.

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 negative guidance ('does not perform inference') tells an agent this is a diagnostic/readiness check rather than a way to run work, which is useful usage framing. However, it never states when to call it (e.g. before submitting a job, when a job appears stalled) or names an alternative tool to use instead.

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