Collect Codex Agent Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call returns immediately, costs one call regardless of fleet size, and produces a lean per-worker report. This is consistent with the annotations and adds operational traits an agent would want to know.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and output, the second covers default invocation and cost, and the third gives routing guidance. The key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates exactly what the report contains (status, done, final message, approval blocker, token spend), so the agent understands the return shape. Combined with the schema and annotations, everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret its result is present.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a bit of extra semantic context by noting the no-arguments sweep and the 'costs one call' property, but it does not substantially extend the schema definitions.

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 and resource ('Collect worker results') and immediately enumerates the report contents, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling agent_status by naming the condition that selects one over the other.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: calling with no arguments is described as the normal fleet sweep, and the description says to prefer this over agent_status unless plan/diff/event detail is needed. This is direct routing with no ambiguity.

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