verify_with_codex

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool plans verification or runs allowed commands and asks Codex to assess evidence, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. The core behavior is described moderately.

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 concise at two sentences, but the first sentence 'Gate completion claims' is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer. Overall, it is efficient with no redundant text.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., assessment results, success/failure). Given the complexity of verification, the lack of return value details and missing behavioral context (e.g., how Codex's assessment is presented) makes the description incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, such as the semantics of 'expectedBehavior' or 'verificationCommands'. It does not enhance understanding of parameter usage.

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 it 'gates completion claims' by planning verification or running commands and using Codex for assessment. While 'gate' is somewhat unconventional, it clearly indicates a verification role, distinguishing it from sibling tools like plan_with_codex or review_code_quality.

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 for verifying completion claims but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as review_with_codex or debug_with_codex. No exclusions or context are provided.

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