codex_task_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '读取' implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but it does not state what happens when no task is selected, whether the call blocks, or how errors surface. For a trivial no-parameter read, this bare minimum is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the action/resource is front-loaded and the trigger condition follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that it never frames the 'currently selected task' dependency or the shape of the status it returns.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (the latest run status of the currently selected Codex task), which is clearly distinct from the list/select/send siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation trigger ('用户说查状态时调用'), which is real routing guidance rather than a restatement. However it names no alternatives and omits the prerequisite that a task must already be selected via codex_select_task before this returns anything meaningful.

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