Review with Codex

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that Codex runs in a read-only sandbox and that the bridge reports whether the workspace changed, which is real safety/behavioral context. It stops short of describing non-repo side effects or failure/long-running behavior beyond what the schema's waitSeconds note covers.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the core action and then the safety/verification detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should characterize the return value; it conveys that findings come with evidence and that workspace change is reported. It does not explain the mailbox/async delivery of results (only the schema's waitSeconds note hints at it), leaving a small gap for a potentially long-running tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (focus, threadId, coordinator routing, timing) beyond what the schema supplies.

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+resource+agent: a read-only repository review performed by Codex, yielding evidence and actionable findings. The 'read-only repository review' framing plausibly distinguishes it from the sibling ask_codex, though that distinction is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (reach for this when you want Codex to review a repo), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select it over ask_codex, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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