run_codex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the safety constraint (only safe codex review flags), which is useful, but does not mention side effects, permissions, return behavior, failure modes, or other behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core compatibility statement and an actionable alternative. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to meaning.

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 rich schema and clear scope limitation, the description is contextually complete for a compatibility wrapper. It explains the narrow use case and directs new workflows to alternatives, though it omits some operational details like result format or required environment, which are less critical here.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the safe flags or the 'action' constraint.

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's function: 'executa apenas codex review com flags seguras' (runs only codex review with safe flags). It identifies the specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings by restricting to codex review and pointing to alternatives.

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 explicitly says to prefer 'review_workspace ou security_audit' for new workflows, providing clear when-to-use guidance and named alternatives. This directly helps an agent choose the correct tool.

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