codex_generate_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: a new chat is created in `project`, the call blocks while waiting, and files are written into dest_dir, with file paths returned. However it says nothing about failure/timeout behavior, whether existing files in dest_dir are overwritten, or that the default 900s timeout makes this a long-running call.

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?

Two dense sentences: the workflow is front-loaded and the return-value/next-step note is appended, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully states the return value (copied file paths), so the basics are covered. Still missing are timeout/failure semantics and documentation for the prompt/timeout_s parameters, leaving an agent guessing on a long-running, file-writing operation.

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, and it only partially does: `project` is tied to 'new chat in project' and dest_dir to 'copy the result(s) into dest_dir'. The `prompt` argument is left implicit and `timeout_s` is never mentioned at all despite its 900s default materially affecting behavior.

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+resource (generate an image, copy the resulting file(s) to dest_dir) and even explains the mechanism (delegating to a new Codex chat's image_gen tool). This clearly distinguishes it from chat-oriented siblings like send_message, read_chat, and codex_goal.

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 implies when the tool is used (you want an image produced) and hints at next steps ('open them with your image viewer/Read tool'), but it never states exclusions or names an alternative (e.g. why use this instead of send_message to a Codex chat). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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