codex_job_result

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains that still-running/cancelled/timed-out/failed jobs return an error envelope, that the envelope matches the job's kind, that meta.job_id is set, and the effect of `detail` parameter. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded with purpose, then logically organized into usage conditions, parameter details, and edge cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Tool deals with async jobs, multiple job kinds, error states, and a detail parameter. Description covers all: result_available condition, error envelope for non-finished jobs, detail levels, workspace fallback, and cross-references sibling tools. Output schema exists (not shown but mentioned), freeing description from return value detail.

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 already covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds extra context: for job_id mentions recovery via codex_job_list, for workspace_root explains fallback behavior, and for detail reiterates the enum options and effect. This is helpful but not essential given schema richness.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb+resource ('Fetch a finished background Codex job's result') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling codex_job_consume_result by noting 'WITHOUT deleting the record'. It also lists the specific async job types it works with, leaving no ambiguity.

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 when codex_job_status reports result_available=true') and when not to use alternatives ('To fetch and delete, use codex_job_consume_result'). Also explains the `detail` parameter options and their impact, providing complete guidance.

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