codex_get_runtime_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a read and discloses the side effect of refresh: 'In client mode refresh queues a worker command.' However, it does not detail other behaviors like idempotency or the scope of capabilities returned.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a behavioral note. It is front-loaded, but could benefit from structured 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?

The description lists what is read (capabilities, models, permissions, hooks, account state, supported methods) but omits skills, which are controlled by an include_skills parameter. It also does not address cwd or timeout. Given the existence of an output schema, the lack of output details is acceptable, but parameter coverage is incomplete.

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%, but the description adds no information about the 7 parameters (refresh, cwd, timeout_seconds, include_*). The only implicit hint is that refresh triggers a worker command, but no parameter details are provided, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 'Read compact runtime capabilities, models, permissions, hooks, account state, and supported methods,' specifying a read verb and listing the resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_health_summary (which checks health) and other read tools.

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 provides usage context: 'Use this after health or before new work.' It gives a sequential positioning but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from health checks.

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