codex_get_app_server_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'without starting it', which suggests no side effects. However, it lacks disclosure of behavior when the process is not running, potential errors, or authentication requirements. More detail would improve transparency.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly improved by including parameter information without becoming verbose.

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 with one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description provides the core purpose but lacks completeness in explaining parameter semantics and behavioral context (e.g., error handling, prerequisites). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has one parameter (include_recent_events) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what this parameter does, nor does it add any meaning beyond the schema. For a single parameter, the description should clarify its purpose.

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 action ('Get status') and the specific resource ('MCP-owned Codex app-server subprocess'), adding the constraint 'without starting it'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_restart_app_server or codex_start_plan_workflow.

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 provides context by noting the tool does not start the process, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you need status without side effects). No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided.

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