Inspect Codex Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the snapshot is 'non-blocking' and captures either 'final or live message,' plus pending requests, which clarifies what state the worker could be in. It doesn't mention staleness or refresh behavior, but 'snapshot' implies a point-in-time view.

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: the first lists the snapshot contents, the second routes to the alternative tool. No filler, and the key scoping 'one worker' is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to use it, with annotations covering read-only safety. Given one parameter, no output schema, and a modest complexity level, nothing critical is missing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented agentId. It does imply that the parameter identifies 'one worker' but never explicitly connects agentId to that worker or explains where to obtain it. For a single self-explanatory parameter this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 specifies a precise purpose: a detailed non-blocking snapshot of one worker, enumerating the exact contents (state, message, plan, diff, usage, pending requests). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_result, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use agent_result instead when you just want results or are checking more than one worker; reach for this when a single worker needs a closer look.' This names the alternative and states the conditions for selecting either tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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