codex_get_thread_compaction_status

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

The description identifies this as a polling action, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose what happens on invalid action_id, rate limits, or the nature of the response beyond being a 'status'. The existence of an output schema partially compensates.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is concise but sacrifices parameter guidance. Slightly better structure could include parameter hints.

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 tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It does not explain the optional include_events parameter or note that action_id comes from codex_start_thread_compaction. The output schema helps but the description lacks integration 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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no information about the two parameters (action_id and include_events). The agent must infer their meaning solely from the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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 'Poll' and the resource 'a thread compaction action created by codex_start_thread_compaction'. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling codex_start_thread_compaction, which initiates the action.

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 context: after starting compaction with codex_start_thread_compaction, one polls with this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the pairing with the start function is clear.

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