Codex Cloud task status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it wraps undocumented CLI commands, warns that field names in list output are not guaranteed stable, and notes that status output is raw (no --json form). These details go beyond annotations and help the agent set expectations correctly.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action ('List... or show status'). Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second explains the CLI wrapper and instability caveat, the third clarifies the status output format. No fluff or redundancy.

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 a good job of explaining return behavior: list returns JSON (with caveat about field stability), status returns raw output. It covers the tool's scope and limitations (undocumented CLI), and the schema handles parameter details. The tool is simple, and the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., 'Ignored when task_id is set'). The description adds some context about task_id switching to status mode and the raw status output, but the schema already conveys this. Given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, this is appropriate; the description does not materially improve parameter understanding.

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's verb ('List' / 'show the status of one') and resource ('Codex Cloud background tasks'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on Codex Cloud tasks, and even mentions the wrapping of undocumented CLI commands. This is a specific, well-defined purpose.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool (listing tasks or showing status via task_id) and implicitly differentiates from siblings (codex_ask, codex_local_sessions, codex_read_thread). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the scope is evident. A minor gap is not naming alternative tools for other task-related operations, but the context is sufficient.

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