codex_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the core action but does not mention output format, side effects, or handling of missing or invalid subcommands; it is acceptable for a low-risk help tool but still thin.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant material. Every word contributes meaning, and it is immediately scannable.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple no-argument invocation, but omits details like default behavior, output shape, and invalid-subcommand handling. Combined with the sparse description of 'command' and no output schema, some edge cases are left unstated.

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?

The schema already documents cwd, env, and timeoutMs, and the description adds that a subcommand is optional. However, it does not explain the expected format or values for the undocumented 'command' property, leaving a notable gap at 75% schema coverage.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Show') and names the exact resource ('Codex CLI help'), while also noting the optional subcommand behavior. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like codex_run or codex_review.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose help over the sibling tools or when to omit the subcommand. Usage is only implied by the word 'help,' leaving the agent to infer the triggering context.

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