codex_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does so by explicitly stating 'no model turn is started.' This is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention return format or error behavior, but the safety-relevant part 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?

A single sentence front-loads the core read action and immediately follows with the important side-effect guarantee. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool, this is nearly complete. However, the description does not explain what the returned thread data contains or what 'bound' means, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Still, the core purpose and side-effect profile are clear.

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 an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail needed, and the description correctly mentions nothing about parameters.

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 specific verb ('Read'), a distinct resource ('current bound Codex thread'), and the access method ('official app-server proxy'). It also clarifies that no model turn is started, distinguishing it from tools that trigger work.

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 implies this is a passive read for inspecting the current Codex thread, but it gives no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of X' guidance. It does not differentiate itself from sibling status tools like dsh_status or workflow_status, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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