codex_get_operation_status

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

Annotations are empty, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions what the tool returns but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. Fair but not comprehensive for a polling operation.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, source, and return content. Front-loaded and no extraneous information.

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?

Description covers purpose and return structure adequately, but missing parameter details and behavioral traits. Given the presence of output schema, it partially compensates, but the 0% param coverage drags completeness down.

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 does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameters beyond the schema's basic constraints. For a tool with 6 parameters, this is a critical gap.

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?

Description clearly states it polls a durable Codex operation created by codex_submit_task and lists specific return fields (phase, thread/turn ids, messages, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by linking to the specific submission function.

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 implies usage after submitting a task via codex_submit_task, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternative status tools among siblings.

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