codex_login_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'check authentication status' and the underlying command, but it does not state whether the operation issues a network request, what its output looks like, whether it mutates state, or what happens when authentication is missing. This is minimal disclosure of behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the operation and the exact command reference in a compact form. Every word earns its place.

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?

Overall the tool shape is very simple: no required parameters, one clear purpose, and a generic schema. However, the description gives no indication of the response shape or success/failure semantics, and there is no output schema and no annotations to compensate. An agent can safely invoke it but may not know how to interpret the result.

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 schema covers all parameters (cwd, env, timeoutMs) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but also none is needed because these are generic process-control parameters already well explained by the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check Codex CLI authentication status'. It also refers to the exact underlying command (`codex login status`), which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does. The purpose is distinct from siblings like codex_review, codex_run, and codex_doctor.

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 does not explain when an agent should call this tool instead of a sibling. No prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions are provided. The usage context is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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