codex_continue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., mutating the thread), permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it is safe. The alias note hints at behavior but is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences, including an alias note. However, it could be slightly more structured or informative without losing brevity.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and 12 sibling tools, the description is too brief. It omits details on return format, error handling, and the full scope of functionality, making it incomplete for confident agent 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?

Only 29% of parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the description adds no information about any parameters. It does not explain workingDirectory, model, sandboxMode, etc., leaving agents to guess their meaning or rely on defaults.

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 it continues an existing conversation thread and is an alias for codex_run_turn. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like codex_start_thread (start new) and codex_get_thread (view). However, it could be more specific about what 'continue' entails (e.g., adding a turn).

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 only mentions it is an alias for codex_run_turn, implying interchangeability, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With 12 sibling tools, more context is needed.

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