codex_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool blocks, has a default timeout of 1800s, and that timed-out tasks continue running. This covers the key behaviors without omitting critical details.

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: two sentences plus a timeout note. It immediately states the purpose and provides necessary usage context without superfluous 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 absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity (two parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, timeout behavior, and follow-up options. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 for parameters is 100%, with descriptions already present. The tool description adds context about default timeout and non-killing behavior, but this is also captured in the schema's timeout description. Thus, parameter semantics are adequate but not significantly enhanced beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Block until one or more async Codex tasks complete, then return all results.' It distinguishes from siblings like codex_status and codex_async by noting that it avoids polling and contrasts with launching tasks.

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 advises to 'call once after launching codex_async tasks' and explains timeout behavior: 'If a task times out, it is NOT killed -- it keeps running. You can call codex_wait again... or use codex_status to check progress.' This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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