codex_get_runtime_capabilities

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

The description notes it is a 'compact cached inventory' implying non-destructive, read-only behavior and potential staleness, but does not mention the refresh parameter or cache lifecycle. With no annotations, more detail on staleness and side effects 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 main purpose. However, the dense listing of categories could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks guidance on parameter usage and cache behavior. For a tool with 7 parameters, the description is only adequate, not complete.

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%. The description partially maps to some parameters (e.g., listing categories that correspond to include_* parameters) but omits refresh, cwd, and timeout_seconds entirely. This leaves the agent unclear on how to control output or force cache refresh.

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 it reads a compact cached inventory of runtime capabilities and lists specific categories (models, permission profiles, etc.). This verb+resource pair is distinct from sibling tools like codex_get_app_server_status or codex_health_summary.

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 use for introspection of runtime capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., codex_get_app_server_status for server status). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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