Codex MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool continues discussions with Codex but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, how it handles session state, response format, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context, with zero wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that interacts with an AI system (Codex). It lacks details on response behavior, error handling, or session management, which are critical for contextual understanding.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (message and session_id). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of message content or session_id format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '在现有会话中继续讨论' (continue discussion in an existing session) with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on continuing existing sessions rather than initiating new reviews, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for comparison.

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 provides implied usage context: '用于追问 Codex 更多细节或请求进一步的修改建议' (used to ask Codex for more details or request further modification suggestions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (review_code_changes, review_file, review_project) or provide clear exclusions.

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