get_codex_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that it consumes no agent turn (no cost/latency/side effects on the conversation). It omits whether the call requires authentication, which account/workspace context it is scoped to, and any rate-limit behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and returned data lead, and the differentiator trails. Nothing to trim.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back, partially standing in for the absent output schema. But with no annotations and an entirely undocumented workspace parameter, an agent cannot tell whether to pass a workspace or how that changes the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single optional 'workspace' parameter, so there is no indication of what a workspace value does (presumably scoping which account's models/quota are read). The one parameter that exists is undocumented everywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus the exact resources returned: current models, supported efforts, and account quota. The qualifier 'without an agent turn' implicitly separates it from ask_codex/ask_agent, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

'without an agent turn' gives clear context for choosing this over conversational siblings like ask_codex — it is the cheap, no-side-effect lookup path. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it lands below the top mark.

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