codex_get_turn_status

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions data sources ('live app-server tracking with MCP hook history and legacy KB history fallback'), which adds useful context about behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. More transparency would be expected.

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, ~25 words, with the primary purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value—introducing the resource and the unique data-fetching mechanism. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters with zero documentation, an output schema, and numerous siblings, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral details (e.g., error cases, read-only nature). The data source mention is helpful but insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not elaborate on any of the six parameters (turn_id, thread_id, last_messages, etc.), leaving their meaning and constraints unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 gets 'tracked Codex turn status and the latest assistant messages,' specifying a distinct resource ('turn status') and verb ('Get'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like codex_get_chat_status (chat-level) and codex_get_operation_status (operation-level), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like codex_get_chat_status or codex_get_workflow_status. Usage context is implied by the name and description but lacks clear when-to/when-not-to instructions.

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