codex_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is for live status (no side effects) and specifies what information it provides. It could mention polling behavior or rate limits, but the transparency is adequate for a read-only status check.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence provides useful information.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description covers functionality and output details. It omits the exact output format, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for task_ids. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 retrieves live status of async Codex tasks, specifying what information it shows (last tool call, reasoning, progress). It differentiates from siblings like codex_async (starts tasks) and codex_cancel (cancels them).

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 implies usage after starting an async task with codex_async and notes it works on both running and completed tasks. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or state alternatives, but context from sibling names provides enough guidance.

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