worker_respond

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the rest. It adds the meaningful requirement that the requestId be the exact pending one and that the response match what the request expects, plus an implied reject path with reason. It omits permissions, whether responding is irreversible, and what happens to the worker afterwards.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence bundles two constraints that could have been crisper.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of the call but leaves taskId/reason semantics and the expected response shape to be inferred. Adequate but not complete.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description has to compensate. It explains requestId (the exact pending value) and response (the request-specific object), but says nothing about taskId, reject, or reason semantics, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific action on a specific resource ('answer or reject a pending official Codex server request') and ties it to a named sibling, worker_status, which is where such requests surface. It is clearly distinguishable from steering, waiting, or cancelling a worker.

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?

States the triggering condition ('surfaced by worker_status') and a key usage constraint ('Pass the exact pending requestId'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not say what to do when no request is pending or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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