Inspect background relay

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent status inspection. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavioral context: transport readiness is separate from CLI authentication/model readiness, authentication-unverified can still accept work, and actual job failures should be reported from receipts.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds relevant interpretive guidance. It is slightly dense, but there is no obvious filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description does more than most by explaining key status semantics and avoiding a common misreading of authentication-unverified. It still does not describe the overall response shape or clarify its relationship to sibling status tools, which keeps it from being 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the schema is empty and complete for this status-inspection operation.

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 gives a specific verb/resource set: inspecting the independent background relay, CLI readiness, and recent diagnostic reports. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status/list tools such as list_workers or codex_bridge_status.

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?

It provides useful usage context for interpreting statuses, including that desktop apps may be closed/frozen and that authentication-unverified with canAcceptWork=true is informational rather than a failure. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_workers or codex_bridge_status.

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