codex_get_workflow_status

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

The description implies a read-only polling operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, is safe to call repeatedly, or disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits or data staleness. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 without superfluous words, efficiently conveying the core functionality. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action and then lists aggregated items.

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 description lists what is aggregated, which is helpful given the presence of an output schema. However, it omits any mention of error scenarios, timeout behavior, or the expected lifecycle of a workflow. More context about the 'recommended next action' would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (workflow_id, last_messages, message_max_chars, include_events). The user must rely solely on parameter names and types, which may be insufficient for correct usage.

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's action ('Poll'), the target resource ('a durable long-running orchestrator -> Codex workflow'), and lists the aggregated components (plan turn, execution turn, etc.), making it obvious what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_get_turn_status or codex_get_operation_status by covering a broader scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to poll status vs. other workflow tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites, frequency of polling, or conditions for invocation.

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