Report External GDB Activity from Codex

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it publishes only independent Session events visible in attach/events, reporting failure must not interrupt GDB, and renewal is independent of reporting. It also discloses sequence-gap and retry semantics plus redaction requirements, which are rich operational details for a mutation-like reporting 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?

The key purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph contains no filler, with each clause carrying operational guidance. It is dense and could be better structured, and some sequence/redaction guidance overlaps the schema, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

With an output schema and fully documented input schema, the description supplies the remaining critical context: scope boundaries, failure isolation, retry behavior, redaction, and non-interference with debugging. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 already 100%, including sequence gaps, deduplication, redaction, and bridge_id meaning. The description repeats sequence/retry and redaction guidance but adds little new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: report externally executed GDB commands/results/states as Codex reports. It explicitly distinguishes this from a complete audit, event execution, and heartbeat renewal, so an agent can tell it apart from debug_command, debug_events, and debug_bridge_renew.

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?

It clearly states the reporting context and excludes command execution, RSP forwarding, target verification, and heartbeat renewal. It also defines failure behavior, but does not explicitly name the sibling tools to use for those excluded tasks, so it falls short of fully explicit alternatives.

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