ask_codex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses very little behavior. It notes that model and reasoning_effort select thread settings, which is a small behavioral hint, but it does not say whether the call is read-only, what side effects occur, how the Codex thread is managed, or what the response contains.

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 very short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, with the parameter note following. There is no filler, though the second sentence is cryptic and could be folded more cleanly into the first. It is appropriately sized for a minimal tool definition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters. The description omits usage guidance, behavioral details, and most parameter semantics, leaving an agent under-informed for selecting and invoking it among several sibling agent tools. It provides only a bare purpose statement and a fragment about thread settings.

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 for all three parameters. It only partially addresses two of them by saying model and reasoning_effort select thread settings, and it never explains allowed values, defaults, or the role of the required prompt parameter. This leaves significant semantic gaps.

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 gives a clear verb ('Delegate') and resource ('Codex'), making the tool's high-level purpose recognizable. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like ask_antigravity or get_codex_info by naming Codex, but it does not explicitly state what kind of delegation occurs or how it differs from ask_agent.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives such as ask_agent, ask_antigravity, or get_codex_info, nor does it explain when an agent should choose this tool over them. There is only a bare statement of delegation with no context or exclusions.

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