codex_health_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the tool as a 'Read' operation, implying no side effects or destructive actions. However, it does not mention caching, latency, or any rate limits, which is acceptable for a lightweight health read.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides clear usage guidance. Front-loaded 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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, with 10 parameters and a health-check tool, more context on parameter usage (e.g., filters, defaults) would improve usability. The description is adequate for the simplest use but not fully 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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any of the 10 parameters (e.g., operation_id, since_minutes). The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies clearly the resource: 'compact MCP readiness and contract metadata'. It also distinguishes this tool as a first-step health check among many sibling tools like codex_get_runtime_capabilities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this first on startup, reconnect, and after MCP restart.' It also provides follow-up actions: 'Next inspect runtime capabilities or follow agentGuidance if health is degraded,' guiding the agent in decision-making.

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