codex_status

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds significant context: free, no model call, rate_limit is a cached snapshot, explains available/limited/exhausted/unknown meanings, staleness, and home_unverified. This is excellent transparency.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose first, then detailed rate_limit explanation. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it checks, what it reports, how to interpret rate_limit, and its role as first diagnostic step.

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?

No parameters, so schema does not need compensation. The description focuses on behavior and output. Baseline 4 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 CLI installation, authentication, version, and reports resolved defaults. It specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'CLI status', and distinguishes from siblings that make model calls (e.g., codex_consult).

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 advises 'Call this first when a run fails with a setup error' and provides guidance on interpreting rate_limit values to decide whether to spend. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use, the context is clear.

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