Get local Codex job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that the tool returns 'status and result', which is useful but not detailed. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., potential blocking, error cases, size of result) are disclosed, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core purpose and does not waste tokens. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a simple read-only tool.

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 the tool has an output schema and annotations for safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any clarification of 'local' versus other job types, nor does it indicate that the job must have been started by start_codex_job. An agent might confuse it with get_job or get_codex_turn_status without explicit context. Thus, it is minimally complete but with noticeable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely for the parameter 'job_id'. It implies job_id identifies a local Codex job but provides no details on provenance (e.g., how to obtain it from start_codex_job), format, or validation. This minimal information is barely sufficient for an agent to understand what to pass.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('status and result of a local Codex job'), clarifying the tool's scope and distinguishing it from siblings like start_codex_job or cancel_codex_job. The qualifier 'local' also sets it apart from the more generic get_job, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_job, start_codex_job, or other codex-related tools, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the name, which is insufficient for selecting between overlapping tools like get_job.

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