codex_wait

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-obvious behavior: timeout returns current state without killing the task, the call can be re-issued to keep waiting, finished tasks return immediately, and progress notifications fire every 10 seconds. This is rich context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: core behavior first, then timeout/notification behavior, then the alternative-tool pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers what to expect on return (results, current state on timeout, immediate return for finished tasks) plus the rerun and notification behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top of the schema by explaining the timeout semantics (returns state, does not kill, re-callable) and the no-ids default, going past raw field documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: blocking-wait on one or more tasks and returning their results. It also states scope explicitly ('不传 ids 就等本会话全部运行中的任务'), which an agent can use to distinguish it from the other codex_* siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative and the condition selecting it: '只想看一眼不想等，用 codex_status'. It also clarifies the no-ids default, which effectively tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus polling status.

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