codex_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It concretely states that a subprocess command (`codex doctor --json`) is executed and what areas it checks, which is useful transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the command is read-only, whether it accesses credentials or network endpoints, or what failure modes may occur.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the health categories listed efficiently. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of information already present in the schema.

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 core purpose and command are clear, and the schema covers the parameters, but there is no output schema or annotation help. The description does not explain the shape of the returned JSON, exit behaviors, or potential side effects, so an agent is left to infer some important runtime context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (cwd, env, timeoutMs) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it also does not improve on it.

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 names the exact command (`codex doctor --json`) and the resource it operates on: Codex built-in diagnostics. It also enumerates the health domains (install, auth, config, connectivity), making it clearly distinct from siblings like codex_run or codex_login_status.

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 that this tool is for diagnosing Codex installation, auth, config, and connectivity issues, which gives the agent a clear signal about when it might be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like codex_login_status or codex_help, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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