Codex MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'Codex 将读取文件并根据变更描述提供审查建议' (Codex will read the file and provide review suggestions based on the change description), which gives some behavioral insight (e.g., it involves reading and AI analysis). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and usage context, and the second explains the behavioral process. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error handling. It's adequate for a simple review tool but incomplete for guiding an AI agent fully, especially without annotations to cover safety or operational aspects.

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 all three parameters (file_path, change_description, session_id) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. 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: '审查单个文件的内容' (review content of a single file) and '提供审查建议' (provide review suggestions). It specifies the verb (review), resource (file content), and scope (single file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'review_code_changes' or 'review_project' beyond mentioning it's for '改动仅在单个或两个文件内的情况' (changes limited to one or two files).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: '适用于改动仅在单个或两个文件内的情况' (suitable when changes are limited to one or two files). It implies alternatives by mentioning this scope, but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is helpful but could be more explicit about comparisons.

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