codex_async

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains the async behavior, immediate return, and worktree isolation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or task persistence, which are minor gaps.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding distinct value. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, async workflow), the description covers the key workflow: start, get task_id, use companion tools. It lacks details on return format and error conditions, but is otherwise complete for a background task tool.

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 value by explaining the worktree parameter's behavior and purpose, but does not enhance understanding of other parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 starts a Codex task in the background and returns a task_id immediately. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing codex_wait and codex_status for collecting results and monitoring progress.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: for background task execution. Mentions alternatives (codex_wait, codex_status) and provides context for using the worktree parameter to avoid conflicts in parallel tasks.

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