latest_generated_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source directory (including default ~/.codex/generated_images) and the ordering (newest first). However, it does not explain what happens when no images exist, how the limit parameter affects results, or the exact return format beyond 'absolute paths'. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation safety hints.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. The first sentence states exactly what the tool returns and from where, and the second provides a concrete use case. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the primary purpose and usage. However, it omits documentation of the limit parameter and any mention of default behavior when limit is not provided. Given there is no output schema, the description should have been more explicit about the return value's shape and the effect of the parameter. This is a clear, but not fatal, gap.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'limit', with no description, and the overall schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name. Since the description was expected to compensate for the low schema coverage, this is a significant omission, though the parameter name is somewhat intuitive.

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: 'Return absolute paths of the most recently generated images from Codex's built-in image_gen output directory'. It specifies the resource (image_gen output directory) and the action (return absolute paths), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on generated images and providing paths for attachment. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to recover the path of an image you just generated so you can attach it via the files array of reply or send_message.' This provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough to make the intended use case obvious.

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