codex_get_thread_compaction_status

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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. It labels the tool as 'passive' and says it returns 'bounded status or guidance', indicating read-only behavior and predictable output. No side effects disclosed, but this suffices for a polling 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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Poll'. Every line adds essential context: purpose then usage and behavior. No redundancies.

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?

With an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description doesn't mention the optional parameter or elaborate on what 'bounded status' means. It could more clearly differentiate this from generic status tools.

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 only implicitly addresses the action_id parameter by noting its source, but the optional include_events parameter is completely unexplained. This leaves an agent guessing about the boolean's effect.

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 polls a thread compaction action and ties it to 'codex_start_thread_compaction'. This differentiates it from other status tools like 'codex_get_operation_status' by specifying the resource and verb.

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 instructs to use the actionId from codex_start_thread_compaction, giving clear context for when to invoke. It implies a sequential usage pattern but stops short of listing when not to use or suggesting alternative tools.

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