codex_host_agent_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context about how the tool behaves without authentication binding: it returns a structured unavailable result and discloses no thread metadata. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose stated immediately and a key limitation in the second sentence. There is no fluff or repetition. The description is front-loaded and compact, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 status-check tool with no parameters and an output schema (which likely describes the returned structure), the description is fully sufficient. It explains the purpose, the condition under which it returns an unavailable result, and the data it does not disclose. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and the description need not explain any args. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, as the tool requires no input. The description's mention of thread binding refers to an external context, not a parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('protected current-task Codex control'), and states exactly what it reports (whether it is available). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are about governance, research, and memory operations, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly states the tool reports availability of protected current-task Codex control. It also provides a contextual detail: without a host-authenticated per-call thread binding, it returns an unavailable result. This gives a condition for use but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. Given the unique purpose, the guidance is clear enough.

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