task_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that with "Stores task metadata only" and "Isolated by project_path." It still omits behavior an agent would want, such as what happens when taskId does not exist or whether unstarted tasks are reported differently, so it goes beyond the minimum but not substantially.

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 clauses, usage condition front-loaded, no filler. The fragmentary style ("...sessions: status.") is slightly awkward and costs a little clarity, but every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description should say what a status actually contains (state, timestamps, assignment) since nothing else does. It covers scope, storage, and isolation adequately but leaves the return semantics and error behavior unstated.

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%, so both taskId and project_path are documented in the schema, including the isolation semantics of canonical paths. The description only echoes the isolation point ("Isolated by project_path") and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome when structured fields already do the work.

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 reads as a lookup of task status keyed by taskId, but the core phrase is a bare noun ("status") rather than a specific verb+resource statement. The clarifying clause ("Stores task metadata only; does not start or execute an agent") usefully separates it from task_assign/task_retry, but the exact operation (read a task's current status) has to be inferred from the name and required params.

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 when tracking persistent work across Codex sessions" gives a situational trigger, and the negation "does not start or execute an agent" implicitly routes execution to task_assign/task_retry. However, no sibling is named explicitly and there is no guidance on when to prefer task_summary, task_list, or task_update instead, which matters given the crowded task_* family.

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