codex_get_concurrency_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation and adds a behavioral caveat about not misinterpreting active locks. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which would be helpful for a diagnostic tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, then guidance. However, the second sentence is somewhat terse and could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not required in the description. However, the tool has two undocumented parameters, and the description does not cover their semantics. This incompleteness lowers the overall utility, despite good usage context.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention `include_locks` (boolean) or `limit` (integer), leaving the agent to guess their roles. This is a major gap that hinders correct usage.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'active turn counts and scheduler resource locks', which directly aligns with the tool name 'concurrency status'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_queue_status or get_operation_status, though the mention of 'parallel work' provides some distinction.

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 advises using this tool 'with queue status when diagnosing parallel work', which gives context for when to invoke it. It also cautions that 'Active locks are not a retry instruction by themselves', preventing misuse. However, it does not specify when not to use it or list alternative tools for other types of status checks.

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