codex_continue_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states basic purpose and alias, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. 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 (two sentences). The first sentence about being an alias is arguably unnecessary and reduces conciseness. It is barely adequate but not overly verbose.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how other parameters affect behavior, or any interaction details.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The main description adds no extra parameter context. The existing descriptions for threadId and prompt are minimal and already in schema.

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 clearly states the tool continues a thread with a follow-up message, but the 'alias for codex_run_turn' meta-statement is redundant and may confuse sibling differentiation. Purpose is clear but not outstanding.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you have an existing thread and want to add a message. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, despite having many sibling tools like codex_start_thread and codex_fork_thread.

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