workflow_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose a read-only behavior ('Read tasks') and calls out that notification failures and delivery uncertainty are included in the result set, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe authentication, scoping edge cases, or what happens when the optional taskId is omitted.

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 filler. It opens with the key action and resource, then adds distinguishing detail about notification failures and delivery uncertainty. Every word 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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It clarifies the tool's basic purpose, but it omits the meaning of taskId, any usage guidance, and any detail about the returned task structure beyond the included failure/uncertainty aspects. This leaves noticeable gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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%, and the description does not mention the taskId parameter at all. Since the sole parameter is optional and undocumented in both schema and prose, the agent cannot know its filtering or scoping effect from the description.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('tasks owned by the current Codex reviewer'), and highlights the distinctive inclusion of notification failures and delivery uncertainty. This makes the tool's purpose identifiable and separates it from sibling tools like workflow_resolve_notification or codex_status.

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 it should be used to read the current reviewer's tasks, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or conditions like 'use workflow_resolve_notification for resolving failures.' An agent is left to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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