codex_check_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (status, duration, trace, results) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'checks', but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, potential side effects, or any limitations. This is adequate for a simple check but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is front-loaded with the verb 'Checks' and remains concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the target task type, and the high-level information returned. It does not specify the exact response format, but that is not essential given the simplicity of the tool.

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 fully describes the task_id parameter, including its origin from execute or continue calls when async is true. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 the status, running duration, execution trace, and results of an asynchronous task, and specifies it applies to Codex or Antigravity. It is specific and distinct from execution tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling codex_get_status, which likely serves a similar or overlapping purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after execute/continue calls, nor does it contrast with codex_get_status or other siblings. An agent is left to infer usage context.

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