codex_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly frames the tool as a status-checking/read-only operation rather than a mutation, and names both installation/operability and authentication status. It doesn't spell out exact success/failure output, but the behavior is sufficiently disclosed for a simple status probe.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes a distinct fact: installed, operational, and authentication status.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity status tool, the description covers the essential invocation context. It could be stronger by listing likely output values or statuses, especially since there is no output schema, but an agent has enough to use the tool as a read-only status check.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to add. A score above baseline is not warranted because the description does not need to clarify arguments; it simply has none.

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 names a concrete verb/resource: it checks whether the OpenAI Codex CLI is installed, operational, and authenticated. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like codex_execute, codex_check_task, and agy_get_status.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'status,' 'installed,' and 'current authentication status,' suggesting a preflight/readiness check. However, it does not explicitly say when to call it versus siblings like codex_check_task or agy_get_status, nor does it state that it should precede codex_execute.

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