Codex Orchestrator Info

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by using 'Check,' and adds context by naming the specific server aspects inspected. It does not mention return format, pagination, or any operational caveats, but for a read-only info tool with annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

A single terse sentence that front-loads the verb and precisely enumerates the scope. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless health-check tool, the description adequately identifies what is inspected and confirms the read-only nature. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the response shape would improve completeness, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed because there are no parameters to explain.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and exact resource scope: the Codex app-server process, worker counts, and unscoped pending server requests. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling agent_* tools, which focus on agent lifecycle operations rather than server infrastructure.

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?

The description implies a diagnostic read-only use case, and the sibling list makes its infrastructure-focused role apparent. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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