Collect the result of a running Codex job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool waits up to wait_sec, that polling may need to be repeated, and that results persist for 60 minutes. It does not describe response statuses in detail, but the core polling behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences convey purpose, usage condition, polling behavior, and retention in a compact, front-loaded structure. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a simple polling tool with two well-documented parameters. However, there is no output schema, so the description could have been more explicit about the response shape or status values returned after waiting. Still, the essential invocation workflow is clear.

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 already describes both parameters fully, including that job_id comes from codex_run or codex_generate_image and that wait_sec defaults to 45 with a maximum of 50. The description reinforces these facts but adds little semantic value beyond them, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a distinct action: retrieving the result of a codex_run or codex_generate_image call that previously returned status: running. It names the exact operation, resource type, and state condition, making it unmistakable from siblings that start jobs or read artifacts.

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 strong usage context: it is meant for jobs that returned status: running, and it instructs the agent to call again if the job is still running. It does not explicitly contrast with codex_read_artifact or list when not to use this tool, but the operational guidance is clear.

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