status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or prerequisites. For a status tool, one might infer it is non-mutating, but this is not stated. The description carries no burden beyond basic purpose, which is insufficient without annotation support.

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 a single, compact sentence that directly states the tool's function with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 simple no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not explain when to use it relative to session_list or whether any side effects exist. The absence of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency reduces completeness, though the output schema may cover return values.

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 empty. The description adds no parameter-level information because none is needed. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets this baseline without needing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Codex CLIの状態とセッション情報を確認' clearly states the tool's purpose: to check Codex CLI status and session information. It uses a specific verb ('確認' / check) and resource ('状態' and 'セッション情報'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like session_list, which may overlap in functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session_list or session_continue. It is a bare statement of purpose without context, exclusions, or explicit recommendations.

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