codex_gui_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two substantive traits: the operation is read-only (no side effects) and it only works from inside the Codex desktop app. It stops short of describing failure behavior when run outside that environment, but the core behavioral profile is covered.

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?

One sentence plus a short qualifier clause, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the safety/environment constraint. No filler.

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 not be spelled out, yet the description usefully previews the payload shape and the environment prerequisite. The remaining hole is the undocumented required thread_id argument.

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 single required parameter thread_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. An agent has to guess whether it is a chat thread identifier, a session id, or something else, and where to obtain it.

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 (Inspect) and resource (ChatGPT/Codex desktop app) and enumerates what is surfaced: app-tools catalogue, busy state, turn count, last message. That distinguishes it from codex_gui_ask, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Read-only; requires running inside the Codex desktop app' gives a real precondition, and 'Inspect' implies a status-check role. However, it never says when to prefer this over codex_gui_ask or antigravity_gui_status, leaving the choice to inference.

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