List Codex threads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose source coverage (app/CLI threads) and sort order (newest first), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination beyond the limit param, or what fields each thread entry contains.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded before the follow-up hint.

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, so the description should ideally sketch the return shape; it only implies a thread_id exists. For a simple two-optional-param list tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about returned fields and pagination behavior.

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 50%: 'cwd' is documented in the schema but 'limit' only carries default/min/max with no explanation. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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 ('List recent Codex threads'), adds scope ('including ones from the Codex app/CLI') and ordering ('newest first'). An agent can distinguish it from the codex_run/codex_status siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the next step: 'Continue one with codex_run + thread_id.' That is actionable context, but there is no statement of when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to other listing/status siblings such as codex_status.

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