List Codex jobs

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds useful scoping ('started by this server') and discloses the shape of each returned row (status, kind, session_id), which the annotations do not cover. However, it says nothing about how 'recent' is bounded, ordering, or result limits.

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 the verb and scope first and the returned fields in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical field list is thin enough that it barely earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields in each row, and the zero-parameter schema means there is no input surface to document. The main remaining gap is the absence of any bound on 'recent' (count, window, or pagination), which an agent would want before calling.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or omit, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent jobs started by this server'), and even names the fields returned (status, kind, session_id). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular codex_job sibling, but the description never explicitly names that sibling or the boundary between 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 phrase 'recent jobs started by this server' implies a browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no reference to codex_job for retrieving a single job's details. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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