codex_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions using 'codex exec resume' under the hood, but does not disclose whether the tool is blocking, error handling, or rate limits. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a continuation tool.

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 a single sentence plus a brief technical note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words, and efficient for agent consumption.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. It explains the action and underlying command but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Could be more complete with usage context.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the parameter roles. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Continue a Codex conversation' by providing a thread ID and prompt. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'codex' (which likely starts new conversations) and async variants, making it easy for an agent to select appropriately.

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 implies use when continuing an existing conversation, and the sibling list provides context. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' vs. alternatives, such as preferring 'codex' for new sessions. Still, the guidance is clear for most scenarios.

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