Continue Codex with Fable's answer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose key behaviors: resuming a saved session/worktree and continuing until a terminal state (completed/blocked/failed/round limit). However, it doesn't disclose side effects on the worktree, whether the tool is idempotent, or what happens exactly on each terminal condition – leaving important operational ambiguity.

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 two sentences, with the main action in the first sentence and usage/termination criteria in the second. Every clause adds needed context; no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse quickly.

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 role in a multi-step orchestration and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers invocation timing, the continuation loop, and stopping conditions. It could be more complete by explicitly stating what the tool returns or how to interpret the terminal states, but the 'continue until' phrasing implies a status is available. Overall, sufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a small contextual link by stating the answer should follow 'the question returned by bridge_orchestrate_codex', but it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are clear and self-sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Resume the exact saved Codex session and worktree' – a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing 'the question returned by bridge_orchestrate_codex' and the 'same Claude turn', making it distinct from related orchestration and status tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this automatically in the same Claude turn after answering the question returned by bridge_orchestrate_codex.' It also defines the continuation behavior up to 'completed, blocked, failed, or the round limit'. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use examples or alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-criterion.

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