Codex code review

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 two useful traits: the operation is read-only, and the output lands in the 'review' field. It does not cover whether a thread/run is spawned, how it interacts with codex_wait/status/interrupt siblings, or authentication needs. Partial disclosure for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action and the return-field location front-loaded, then the steering hint. No filler. Could be slightly tighter but earns nearly every clause.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, explaining that results arrive in the 'review' field is valuable, and the schema documents target/wait_seconds. But the description omits how this relates to the thread-lifecycle siblings (wait/status/interrupt/respond), leaving the agent to infer the async workflow.

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 56%, so several parameters (model, effort, commit_sha, base_branch) rely on the schema alone. The description does add real meaning for 'focus' and especially 'adversarial' ('challenges the design, not just bugs'), which enriches beyond the schema text. This compensates for some but not all of 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 and resource: 'Run Codex's native code review (read-only) in a git repo.' The 'native code review' phrasing distinguishes it from the generic codex_run sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with codex_run's capabilities, so the boundary is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for one mode ('Pass focus and/or adversarial: true for a steerable review'), which implies when the deeper mode is appropriate. However, it never says when to choose codex_review over codex_run, nor any prerequisites such as needing a thread or authenticated Codex. Usage is implied, not fully framed.

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