claude_codex_chat

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses authentication fallback behavior but fails to explain other important behavioral aspects such as whether responses are streamed, error handling, idempotency, or side effects. Given zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 core purpose. However, conciseness is undermined by missing critical information; it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence is needed but still insufficient.

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?

With 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to construct requests, what the response format is, or any constraints beyond those in the schema (e.g., timeout max). Essential for successful invocation is absent.

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 description coverage is 0% with 7 parameters (model, prompt, system, messages, max_tokens, temperature, timeout_sec). The description adds no meaning to any parameter. The agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names, which is unreliable for complex parameters like messages array.

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 'Chat via Anthropic Messages' clearly states the verb (chat) and resource (Anthropic Messages). The tool name 'claude_codex_chat' reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings as no other sibling is a chat tool. However, it could be more explicit about sending messages to Claude through the Messages API.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions authentication preferences (prefers OAuth, falls back to API key), which is behavioral rather than usage context. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information relative to sibling tools.

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