get_codex_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully spends its words on return contents and the non-obvious caveat that queued/running must not be treated as completed. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though nothing is said about retention or error responses.

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 tight sentences with the core action and return payload up front, followed by the critical interpretation caveat. No wasted text.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates what comes back and warns about in-progress states, which is most of what an agent needs. The task_id provenance is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single task_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'previously submitted task' weakly links task_id to the submit tools, but the description does not state the ID's origin or format.

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?

Specific verb 'Retrieve' plus the concrete resources returned (status, final answer, token usage) for a 'previously submitted task'. The Codex scope is only conveyed by the tool name, not the description text, so the split from get_claude_task 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?

'For a previously submitted task' implies the polling/precondition context and the warning about queued/running states steers result interpretation. However it never says when to choose this over get_claude_task or how often to poll.

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