codex_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (start native code review) and the constraint (only explicit targets), but doesn't disclose what happens to the thread, whether it's a long-running operation, whether it modifies state, or what the delivery modes (inline/detached) mean behaviorally. For a tool that likely mutates or drives a thread, this is a significant gap.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loads the core action. It's efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical parameter semantics and behavioral context. Still, every word earns its place, and the constraint is clearly stated.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, a nested target object with 4 enum subtypes, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. An agent would need to understand what 'delivery' means, what each target type implies, and what the review process entails. The description only covers the 'explicit target' requirement, leaving major gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions '明确的审查目标' (explicit review target), which maps to the 'target' parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning of 'threadId', 'delivery', or the target subtypes (uncommittedChanges, baseBranch, commit, custom). The nested object structure with 4 subtypes is completely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent to guess at semantics.

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 ('启动原生代码审查' - start native code review) and resource ('已有 Codex thread' - existing Codex thread), distinguishing it from sibling tools like codex_start and codex_status. It also adds a constraint ('仅接受明确的审查目标' - only accepts explicit review targets), which helps clarify scope. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, so it loses a point.

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 usage context: it operates on an existing thread and requires an explicit target. The constraint '仅接受明确的审查目标' gives some guidance on when to use it (when a clear review target exists). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like codex_steer or codex_status for other operations on threads.

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