codex_get_turn_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads safe progress and terminal evidence, and warns against inferring stall from row age. Yet it lacks details on side effects (none), authorization, rate limits, or output format. The warning adds value but the description could be more comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, no unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage hint and a warning. Excellent efficiency for a read operation.

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 six parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'terminal evidence' means, how the parameters control output (e.g., message count limits), or summarize the return structure. The agent is left with significant gaps despite the output schema existing.

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% (six parameters have no inline descriptions). The description only indirectly references turn_id and thread_id ('use this when you have threadId and turnId'), but says nothing about the other four parameters (last_messages, message_max_chars, progress_events, progress_max_chars). This forces the agent to rely solely on schema types and defaults, which is insufficient.

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 reads a tracked Codex turn, with specific verb 'Read' and resource 'one tracked Codex turn'. It mentions included data (safe progress, terminal evidence). While it distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools by specifying 'turn', it does not explicitly contrast with similar status tools, but the name and context suffice.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you have threadId and turnId.' Additionally adds a caution: 'Do not infer stalled state from row age alone.' This helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not list alternative tools or when not to use it.

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