codex_auth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states it 'never returns a token, API key, cookie, or any other secret,' indicating a read-only, safe operation. It also notes the interactive login flow cannot be triggered, and explains the two auth modes. It adds value beyond the basic purpose statement.

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 concise but includes necessary details. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, security guarantees, auth mode details, and troubleshooting steps. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the response will report (active mode, configured mode, agreement), what to do on authentication failure, and the constraints (no secrets, interactive login unavailable). It adequately prepares the agent for safe and correct use.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, so it earns the baseline 4. It does not introduce any param-specific details, but none are required.

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 states the tool's function: 'Report whether Codex is authenticated and which auth mode is in use.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (authentication status), and the mention of auth modes distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_qualify and codex_capabilities, which likely serve different purposes.

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 explicitly advises when to call the tool: 'Call this before a review if you want to fail fast with a clear message.' It also explains what to do if authentication fails (run codex-mcp login). However, it does not mention alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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