codex_get_workflow_status

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals default polling behavior ('from storage by default'), passive nature (via refresh_live descriptions), and usage rule ('do not create replacement work'). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 three sentences long, containing no fluff. Every sentence adds meaning: purpose, usage context, and a critical behavioral guideline. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficient.

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 (1 required), empty annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It covers polling behavior, live refresh nuances, and usage boundaries. The output schema covers return values, so no need to elaborate.

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 33% (only refresh_live and refresh_live_goal have descriptions). The overall description does not elaborate on the other four parameters (workflow_id, last_messages, message_max_chars, include_events). The refresh_live descriptions are well-covered, but the majority lack additional meaning from the description.

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 'Poll workflow state from storage by default' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes usage by specifying contexts: 'Use this for Plan Mode, execution, and review workflows.' This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage contexts ('Plan Mode, execution, and review workflows') and behavioral guidance ('Follow nextRecommendedAction and do not create replacement work'). While it does not mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for the agent to decide when to use this tool.

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