List Codex jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that results are ordered newest first and include current state, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. While not misleading, it leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

The description is extremely concise — two sentences that front-load the purpose and usage context. Every word adds value, with no repetition or fluff.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the primary function and common use cases. It could mention the output format (e.g., array of job objects) since there is no output schema, but the current level is adequate for basic understanding.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for limit and state — the parameters are straightforward and self-explanatory.

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 lists jobs newest first with their current state, and provides specific use cases like finding a lost jobId or checking if anything is still running. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_status or codex_cancel.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('find a jobId you lost track of, or to check whether anything is still running'), giving contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use cases imply differentiation.

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