Codex bridge diagnostics

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: confirms no quota spent, describes best-effort GitHub check with environment variable, and details each diagnostic check. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph with a clear flow: purpose, detailed checks, usage note. Slightly long but every sentence adds value; could be more concise but remains efficient.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and presence of output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, its side effects (no quota), and when to use it. It covers all behavioral and contextual aspects.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 reports diagnostics for the Codex bridge setup, listing specific checks (version, update, PATH, login status, session storage, pinned sessions). It distinguishes from sibling status tools by referencing antigravity_status and focusing on Codex-specific debugging.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'debug "codex not found" or auth errors before spending quota.' It also implies not to use for other bridges, and notes the tool spends no quota, making it safe to run.

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