codex_job_status

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that the tool is free and involves no model call. It explains the poll_after_ms behavior (grows with elapsed runtime, bounded) and the meaning of expires_at and ttl_seconds, providing valuable behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, usage guidance in the second paragraph, and behavioral details in the third. While it is somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value, earning a 4.

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 that an output schema exists (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description appropriately focuses on behavioral and usage context. It covers return values, polling behavior, and retention, making it complete for a status-check tool.

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?

The input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add significant new parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks a background job's lifecycle state without fetching the full result, and specifies it returns status, elapsed time, expiry, and result_available. It distinctly differentiates from siblings like codex_job_result and codex_job_list.

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 to use after any *_async call and directs to call codex_job_result when result_available is true. It also provides guidance on honoring poll_after_ms and describes the back-off behavior, giving clear actionable advice.

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