codex_get_worker_status

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation that does not start the app-server, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or behavior if the worker is unavailable, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Efficient, though the second and third sentences could potentially be merged. No unnecessary wording.

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?

The tool has two parameters with no schema descriptions and no parameter info in the description, which is a major gap for completeness. While the output schema exists (so return values are assumed covered), the parameter ambiguity undermines overall completeness. For a read tool, more detail on parameters is expected.

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 description provides no explanation for either parameter ('include_recent_commands' and 'limit'). The agent cannot determine what these parameters control or how to use them, severely impacting tool invocation.

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 reads central worker heartbeat and execution-mode state, distinguishing it from starting the app-server. It provides context for when to use (health or queue guidance says inspect_worker_health) and suggests follow-up with queue and concurrency status, effectively differentiating from sibling tools like codex_get_queue_status and codex_get_concurrency_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 specifies a condition for use ('when health or queue guidance says inspect_worker_health') and advises comparing results with queue and concurrency status. It does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternative tool names, but the guidance is clear enough.

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