codex_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb "Get" implies a safe read and it does surface an unusual behavioral element (Astra governance/approval rules being part of the returned state), which is genuinely useful. It does not state whether the values are live or cached, or whether reading has any cost or side effect.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and the primary resource, then enumerates the returned fields with a parenthetical example. No filler, though the enumeration makes it slightly dense for one sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so by naming the configuration, active model, reasoning effort, and governance policies. Combined with the empty input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, only missing staleness/live-state semantics.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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?

Clear verb ("Get") plus a specific resource (active Codex CLI configuration) with an enumeration of what is returned: model, reasoning effort, governance policies. It is obviously distinct from the action-oriented siblings (codex_implement, codex_review_code, etc.), but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 is implied by the name and no-arg read nature — an agent inspects current state before invoking the sibling actions. However, the description states no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, and does not say when a status check is warranted versus just running an action tool.

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