codex_get_chat_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'inspect' and 'safe previews,' but does not explicitly guarantee idempotence or declare lack of side effects. The term 'lightweight' hints at low cost, but more explicit safety assurances would be better.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a guidance sentence. No filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds 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 an output schema (exists) and only three parameters (one required), the description is functionally complete for a simple read operation. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and does not elaborate on the preview behavior (e.g., default char limit). Adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'previews' hinting at preview_max_chars, but does not explain chat_id or project_id semantics. The parameter roles and how they affect behavior are left to inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('lightweight chat status and safe previews'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools (codex_get_chat, codex_submit_task) and their different purposes.

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 states when to use: 'Use this to inspect a known thread without starting live work.' And provides clear next steps: 'Next call codex_get_chat for content or codex_submit_task for a new operation.' This helps the agent decide among siblings.

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