codex_get_app_server_status

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

Annotations are empty, so description must cover behavior. It states it's a read-only operation ('without starting it'), but does not detail side effects, authorization, or error conditions. Adequate but lacks depth expected from absent annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator. Missing parameter detail slightly reduces conciseness value.

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 output schema present, return format is covered elsewhere. However, the description omits parameter documentation and does not address prerequisites or edge cases, leaving some gaps for a tool with moderate complexity.

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%, yet the description does not mention the parameter 'include_recent_events' or its effect. The agent must infer meaning from the parameter name alone, which is insufficient for informed invocation.

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 reads app-server status without starting it, and distinguishes it from related tools by specifying its use with worker, queue, and concurrency status. The phrase 'MCP-owned' clarifies the scope.

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?

Explicitly recommends using with worker, queue, and concurrency status to verify active work, and advises preferring worker-derived active turns in client mode. Does not explicitly list alternatives or situations to avoid, but provides clear contextual guidance.

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