Check the Codex bridge environment

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by listing exactly what the tool inspects and reports, including liveness checks and desktop/macOS integration details. It does not contradict the annotations, and for a read-only status tool the disclosure of its reported fields is sufficient.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the specific items reported, with no redundant phrases or filler. Every clause adds information, and the structure is easy to parse for an agent.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter status tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what information it exposes, and how it is bounded to the current machine. There is no output schema, so the enumerated report contents compensate appropriately and give the agent a clear model of the return value.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by definition, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a solid score; the description accurately describes the tool's fixed scope without pretending there are configurable inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('how this bridge is wired on the current machine'), then enumerates the concrete facts returned: platform, resolved codex binary, app-server endpoint and liveness, deep-link support, and macOS integrations. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, all of which are imperative actions rather than status checks.

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?

The phrase 'Report how this bridge is wired' implies this is a diagnostic/status tool to be used when the agent needs environment or connectivity information. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the sibling tools, such as 'check this before delegating' or 'use this when an operation fails.' The usage context is clear but only implied, not stated.

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