Get local Codex turn status

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 restate safety. It adds the return contents (status, items, final agent message) which provides some behavioral context, but it does not disclose any edge cases or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, this 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and what it returns, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 read-only getter with an output schema present, the description is complete. It lists the key return elements and is consistent with the annotations. No additional information is needed for an agent to call this tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not explicitly define thread_id or turn_id, but the phrase 'for one Codex turn' gives context that these IDs identify the turn. The parameter names are self-explanatory, providing baseline understanding, but no additional detail or format is given.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource: 'status, items, and final agent message for one Codex turn.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_codex_job (which operates at the job level) and list_codex_threads (which lists threads). The scope is 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 implies usage when you need turn-level status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_codex_job or read_codex_thread. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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