codex_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions 'pre-defined review prompts,' giving a slight hint about input constraints, but omits critical details like whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what side effects occur.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions). It fails to earn its place by omitting essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Considering the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address how parameters interact, what valid inputs are, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. Yet it adds no meaning to review_type, work_dir, target, prompt, or ctx. The agent gains no insight into what these parameters represent or how to use them correctly.

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 'Execute code review using codex with pre-defined review prompts,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose as code review. While it distinguishes from siblings like codex_execute and codex_research by focusing on review, it does not elaborate on what makes this review tool unique.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives codex_execute or codex_research. The description lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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