codex_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that execution is non-interactive and that a new prompt may be sent; it does not disclose side effects, whether code may be executed, sandbox implications, or what happens to the resumed session. For a tool with a destructive-looking bypass parameter, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core operation and command. It earns its place, though it is so sparse that it leaves important behavioral and usage context unaddressed, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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?

This is a 14-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a one-sentence description. The description does not explain session selection defaults, output location, process behavior, safety posture, or relationship to the many sibling tools, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in varied contexts.

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 provides 100% coverage of all 14 parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds very little parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'new prompt' idea, but it does not need to because the schema already documents each parameter well.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resume a previous Codex session non-interactively' and even names the underlying command `codex exec resume`. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools by mentioning 'previous session,' but it does not explicitly contrast itself with codex_run or codex_fork, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it: when resuming a previous Codex session rather than starting a new one. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling tool such as codex_run or codex_fork, so the usage context is only implied.

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