codex_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: 'edit' replaces the objective and presses Save, and changes are validated against Codex's goal store. However it omits side effects of pause/resume, permission or auth requirements, and what 'get' returns.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first clause, then packs action semantics into a compact parenthetical list. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action behaviors well but leaves `project` unexplained and gives no sense of what read/get returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does well for `action` (spelling out get/pause/resume/edit semantics), `chat` (id or exact title), and `objective` (used by edit), but says nothing about the `project` parameter, leaving one of four undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Read or steer the goal of a Codex chat'), which clearly separates it from siblings like read_chat or list_chats. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 enumerates the actions and what each does, which implies usage, but never states when to choose this tool over read_chat/send_message or what prerequisites (e.g., a valid chat id) are needed. Usage is left to inference from the action list.

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