codex_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; '查看本地' does convey read-only local access, which is the key behavioral fact. However, it says nothing about pagination/limit behavior, ordering, performance on large histories, or whether any auth/config is needed.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the list/detail distinction and followed by the source-coverage scope note. No filler, though the source list is somewhat peripheral to how the tool is invoked.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, the definition is adequate to call it correctly. Since there is no output schema, the description could have said more about what the list/detail results look like, but the schema's threadId text partially compensates.

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 cwd, limit and threadId are already fully documented with defaults and bounds; baseline is 3. The description adds only the cross-cutting '全来源 (CLI / VS Code / 桌面端 / exec / appServer)' context, not parameter-level meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (查看) and resource (本地 Codex 原生历史会话列表 / 指定会话详情), and covers both list and detail modes plus source coverage. Siblings (codex_poll/send/approve/cancel) are action-oriented, so the read-only history tool is easy to tell apart, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.

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 two operating modes are implied — omit threadId to list, supply it to read a session — and the schema's threadId description confirms this. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so usage must be inferred.

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