Wait for Codex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well on the core trait: it blocks, returns early when a turn finishes or Codex needs an answer, and the turn keeps running afterward (reinforced in wait_seconds). However, it says nothing about permissions, concurrency, or what a 'blocked on a request' state means operationally for the caller.

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, front-loaded with the action and return, then the mode behavior. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 blocking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return timing and the mode switch reasonably well. It omits authentication needs, whether the call is safe/idempotent, and what the returned 'reports' contain, leaving gaps for a tool whose whole purpose is a side-effect-free wait.

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%: mode and thread_id have no schema descriptions, while thread_ids and wait_seconds do. The description compensates for mode by defining 'all' vs 'any' semantics, but adds nothing for thread_id or the relationship between thread_id and thread_ids, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 (wait) and resource (turns on Codex threads) plus the return payload (reports), so an agent knows this blocks until turns resolve. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like codex_status, but the blocking-wait semantics are distinctive enough to infer.

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 explains the mode-based return conditions (all vs any), which implicitly tells the agent when the call completes, but never says when to prefer this over codex_status or how it relates to codex_run. Usage is implied rather than stated with alternatives.

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