codex_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds 'ordered, append-only' which clarifies the event stream nature, and 'after a sequence cursor' explains pagination. However, it does not disclose details like what happens when the cursor is out of range or whether events are ephemeral or persisted. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, lean sentence that front-loads the core operation and immediately mentions key constraints ('ordered, append-only') and the pagination mechanism. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no enums. The description conveys the core concept but does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'bridge' events, or how 'after_seq' interacts with ordering. For a read-only tool with annotations covering safety, it is adequate but could benefit from clarifying the return structure and edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'sequence cursor' which maps to the 'after_seq' parameter, giving some meaning. It also implies ordering. However, it does not explain 'limit' or 'task_id' beyond what the schema names suggest. The description adds the concept of a cursor but leaves 'task_id' and 'limit' to be inferred.

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 verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('ordered, append-only bridge and Codex events') with a mechanism ('after a sequence cursor'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like codex_audit or codex_status, which could also involve reading events or status.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'after a sequence cursor' which indicates a cursor-based pagination pattern, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like codex_audit or codex_status. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what conditions lead to using a sibling.

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