codex_app_status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Start/probe' without explaining side effects, permissions, or consequences of starting a connection. It does not mention what the return value looks like or whether 'start' is destructive or reversible, which is a significant gap for a tool that can seemingly mutate state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and resource efficiently, though it lacks structured details that might improve clarity. It is appropriately concise for the simple schema but not overly verbose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'probe' returns, what 'start' actually does, or any behavioral context. The single line is insufficient for an agent to safely and effectively use the tool, especially given the need to distinguish it from many similar siblings.

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 schema has one optional boolean parameter 'includeStderr' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it offers zero guidance on what 'includeStderr' controls or how to use 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?

The description states a clear action ('Start/probe') and a specific resource ('version-pinned Codex app-server connection'), which distinguishes it from siblings focused on other aspects like doctor, discover, or protocol. However, the dual verb 'start/probe' is slightly ambiguous about whether the primary function is initiating or checking status, preventing a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of the many codex_app_* siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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