codex_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds little beyond that: 'reports actual versions and boundaries' hints at diagnostic output but does not describe the return shape, failure modes (e.g., adapter not installed), or what 'boundaries' means concretely.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the reported content, then the exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or annotations.

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-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and exclusions adequately. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained project_path parameter, which the schema also leaves undocumented.

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% and the single parameter, project_path, is never explained in the description. An agent must guess whether it is a filesystem path, an absolute vs relative path, or a project identifier, and what happens if it does not exist. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (inspect) and specific resource (the installed Ruflo/Codex adapter and its project store), plus what it reports: actual versions and boundaries. This is clearly distinguishable from the memory_*/task_* siblings, which are all data-mutation or task-lifecycle tools.

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?

'Use to inspect...' frames the intended context, and the explicit negatives ('Does not launch agents or modify Codex settings') prevent a common mis-invocation. No alternative tool is named, but no sibling covers this adapter-diagnostic purpose, so the exclusion is the only routing guidance needed.

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