codex_gravity_completion_status

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

With no annotations, the description does good work on two fronts: it discloses that the call is non-mutating ('without sending a message') and pre-empts a costly misreading of the `notified` state (desktop accepted a follow-up, not review success). It still leaves the wider state machine undocumented — other possible status values and behavior for invalid/expired watch_id are unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler, and the disambiguating scope ('without sending a message') is front-loaded before the state-semantics caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the notified caveat covers the main interpretive risk. But for a two-required-parameter, zero-annotation, zero-coverage tool, the missing link between watch_id and the tool that creates watches is a real gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the description should compensate and does not: it never says where watch_id originates (presumably from codex_gravity_watch_completion) or what form workspace_path takes. The parameter names alone are the only guidance an agent gets.

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 and resource: reading a persisted completion watch, explicitly in a non-blocking way ('without sending a message'). This implicitly separates it from codex_gravity_watch_completion (await/trigger) and codex_gravity_cancel_completion, though neither sibling is named.

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 phrase 'without sending a message' hints this is a polling/lookup call rather than an await, but the description never states when to choose this over codex_gravity_watch_completion or cancel_completion, nor what to do if the watch is unknown or expired. Usage must be inferred.

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