Ask Codex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses worktree isolation and that the task is bounded to one unit of work, but it never says the run writes to the repository, whether changes are committed or left in the worktree, what permissions the worker needs, or what happens to worktree artifacts afterward. Those are meaningful gaps for a code-mutating 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action plus the 'simple entry point' framing are both front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and routing but not the return shape or the async/mailbox fallback result, nor the side effects on the repo. The schema's waitSeconds text hints at the mailbox behavior, but the description itself leaves a caller unsure what comes back on a timeout.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented (defaults for threadId, projectPath, useWorktree, waitSeconds, coordinatorAgent, and the mailbox hand-off). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: sending one bounded implementation/investigation/verification task to a saved Codex worker in an isolated worktree. The second sentence positions it against the mailbox/thread siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from bridge_orchestrate_codex and bridge_continue_codex without opening a schema.

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 frames itself as 'the simple everyday entry point' where 'no mailbox or thread management is required', which is a clear when-to-use signal against the heavier bridge_* alternatives. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g. multi-step orchestration), so it is strong but not complete.

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