codex_answer_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main side effect ('resumes the task') and a key limitation (cannot be used to approve commands or file changes). It does not cover errors or return behavior, but the essential behavioral boundary is clearly stated.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and effect, then adds the critical exclusion. 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 description identifies the trigger, the effect, and an important non-goal, which is a good foundation. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves inputId provenance and answer object structure unexplained. This is a moderate gap for a simple tool, not a fatal one.

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 adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what inputId refers to, where it comes from, or how the answers object should be structured. The phrase 'answers to questions' gives a general hint, but it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('answers to questions returned by codex_pending_input'), and explicitly states it is not for approving commands or file changes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about its core purpose.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool (when codex_pending_input has returned questions needing answers) and gives a firm exclusion (not for approving commands or file changes). It does not name a specific alternative for approvals, but the when-not is explicit enough for an agent to route correctly.

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