codex_collect_diagnostics

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain potential side effects of parameters like 'refresh_catalog' or disclose any prerequisites, rate limits, or return format details. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose by front-loading the main verb and listing key components. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear and concise.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is too high-level. It omits important details such as how parameters allow scoping the snapshot by operation/workflow/thread/turn, filtering by time, or including logs/events. Given the 11 parameters and many sibling tools, the description lacks sufficient completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the 11 parameters. It does not explain how parameters like operation_id, workflow_id, or since_minutes affect the snapshot. The description provides no semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 collects a 'read-only MCP/Codex diagnostic snapshot' and lists specific components (paths, app-server state, active work, pending interactions, workflows, logs/events pointers, health checks). This distinguishes it from siblings like codex_get_app_server_status or codex_get_diagnostic_logs, which are more targeted.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for comprehensive diagnostics but provides no guidance on when a broader snapshot is needed or when to prefer individual diagnostic tools. Context suggests usage, but explicit guidance is absent.

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