codex_artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral scope by naming what is checked and listed, but it doesn't disclose output shape, failure modes, or whether 'check' implies validation against a reference.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose and uses parallel structure effectively, though the dual-action phrasing could be slightly clearer.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description gives a reasonable idea of what the call accomplishes, but it lacks detail about return format and when to use it in a workflow. With no output schema, a small amount of extra context about what the caller receives would make it more complete.

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%, and the description never mentions task_id or explains how it relates to the artifact paths being checked. The parameter is simple and self-descriptive by name, but the description provides no additional semantic value to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a clear action ('check' and 'list') on specific resources ('expected artifact paths' and 'currently changed repository paths'). It is not a tautology, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like repo_snapshot or codex_diff.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what conditions warrant its use. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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