codex_check_result

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns running/completed status and result if available. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., task not found) or whether the call blocks.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and delivers key behavioral details without wasting words.

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 simple checker tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers status outcomes and result availability, though adding a note about potential error states would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with the schema description already explaining the parameter. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks status of an async Codex task, with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'async Codex task'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on polling/completion, while codex_execute presumably runs synchronously and codex_execute_async initiates the task.

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 usage after codex_execute_async by mentioning 'task_id returned by codex_execute_async' in the schema, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it provide direct alternatives beyond naming siblings.

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