code_workspace_codex_turn_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the turn when interrupted), required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too terse to inform an agent about behavioral implications.

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 with no wasted words. It uses a simple structure listing arguments. However, it could be improved by front-loading the action types and providing a clearer separation between the two possible actions.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is minimally informative. It lacks coverage of prerequisites, failure modes, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 should compensate. It only explains 'action' and 'body' with brief examples. Three other parameters (workspace_id, thread_id, turn_id) are left completely unexplained, forcing the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 purpose: to steer or interrupt a specific Codex turn. The verbs are specific and the resource is identified. However, it does not elaborate on what steering vs. interrupting entails beyond the example payload. Among siblings like 'code_workspace_codex_thread_action', the differentiation is hinted by the name but not explicitly clarified.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code_workspace_codex_thread_action'. There is no explanation of when to steer vs. interrupt, nor any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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