codex_get_worker_command_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only notes that it polls a command and provides a parameter hint. It does not mention idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The polling nature is implied but not detailed.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and the listing of command types, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks depth on parameter specifics and error scenarios. The output schema may compensate for return value details, but the description itself is only partially complete.

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%, so the description should compensate. It only provides semantic guidance for the include_result parameter ('Keep include_result=false unless needed'), leaving command_id and max_result_chars unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.

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 'worker command created by a client-mode control action'. It lists specific command types (archive, unarchive, compaction, etc.) which helps distinguish this tool from siblings like codex_get_worker_status or codex_get_thread_compaction_status.

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 explicitly lists the types of commands to use this for (archive, unarchive, compaction, etc.) and advises on when to set include_result=false. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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