Generate Codex Prompt

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

The description adds 'Risk: read', confirming it is a read-only operation. Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so there is no contradiction. However, the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is concise with two short sentences, but the brevity sacrifices informative content. It is front-loaded with the key action but lacks necessary details.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is not complete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'from configured project context and a current goal'. It does not explain the purpose of 'constraints', 'requestingAgent', or how 'goal' and 'projectName' relate. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a 'Codex-ready implementation prompt' from 'configured project context and a current goal'. The verb 'generate' and resource 'implementation prompt' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like notion_* or project_get_context. However, 'configured project context' is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings, no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate to invoke.

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