codex_pending_input

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

没有提供任何注解，描述需要承担全部行为披露责任。“列出”暗示只读，但未明确说明该操作不会修改任何任务状态、是否会阻塞等待、对无效 jobId 的表现，以及返回内容的格式。

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?

描述只有一句，核心功能放在开头，没有冗余内容。结构高效，但过短也导致行为与参数信息不足。

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?

对于只有一个参数且是只读列举操作的简单工具，描述给出了输入对象（某个任务）和输出内容（等待回答的 Codex 问题），属于最低可用水平。但没有输出 schema 或注解，也未说明返回问题的具体字段集合，因此仍有明显缺口。

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 参数覆盖率为 0%，而描述没有直接说明 jobId 参数的含义、来源或格式。仅通过“某个任务”间接暗示与 jobId 的对应关系，对唯一参数的语义补偿不足。

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?

描述使用具体动词“列出”和明确资源“某个任务正在等待回答的 Codex 问题”，清楚说明功能。虽然没有像最佳示例那样点名与 codex_answer_input、codex_status 等兄弟工具的区分，但语义本身足以避免直接混淆。

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?

描述隐含使用场景：当需要查看某个任务尚未回答的 Codex 问题时调用。但没有明确说明何时不应使用，也没有提及应改用 codex_answer_input 或 codex_status 的条件。

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