review_with_codex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return behavior: 'Returns findings first, ordered by severity.' This informs the agent about output order. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none for a review) or authentication needs. The description adds value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 only two sentences, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the key behavioral trait (ordered by severity). Perfectly concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could elaborate on the structure of 'findings' (e.g., types, metadata). It provides minimal contextual completeness. The tool has 4 parameters with good schema coverage, but the description does not cover edge cases or usage scenarios. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only states the overall behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Ask Codex to review the current diff or selected files.' This specific verb-object pairing ('review... diff or selected files') immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'debug_with_codex' or 'plan_with_codex'. The mention of ordering by severity adds specificity.

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?

Description implies when to use the tool (for code review) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. Sibling tool names like 'review_code_quality' and 'validate_workspace' provide some context, but no direct exclusion is given. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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