List Codex models

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral fact — the listing is scoped to the current Codex login rather than global — but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it hits a network/auth boundary, caching, or what shape the list takes. It leans on the obvious read-only nature of a 'list' without confirming it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the resource and scope come first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully self-sufficient, which keeps it just under the top mark.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level but omits the meaning of include_hidden and any note on output format. Adequate but with a clear, easily closed gap.

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% and the single parameter (include_hidden) is never explained in the description. The agent cannot tell from either source whether hidden models should be included by default or why to enable it, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (Codex models) and adds scope detail — models available to 'this Codex login' with supported reasoning efforts. No sibling (codex_run, codex_status, codex_threads, etc.) overlaps with model enumeration, so the agent can immediately place it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that this is the discovery step preceding codex_run, and no stated alternatives or conditions. Usage is only loosely inferable from the name and resource, which matches the calibration's 'no when-to-use, no prerequisites' = 2.

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