Consult Codex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: 'fresh thread' and 'focused' indicate isolation and scope. However, it does not disclose details like whether the fresh thread has access to the current conversation context, or what happens to the thread after the consultation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, and the key qualifiers ('focused', 'read-only', 'fresh thread') are packed efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose but omits parameter semantics (cwd, model), return behavior, and any caveats about the fresh thread's context. For a tool with three parameters and no structured schema help, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters (cwd, model, prompt). The description only mentions 'Ask Codex' and 'fresh thread', which implies the prompt parameter but does not explain cwd or model. This is a significant gap for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 ('Ask'), a resource ('Codex'), and a clear scope ('focused, read-only second opinion in a fresh thread'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing 'second opinion' and 'fresh thread', though it does not explicitly name the sibling 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 implies when to use this tool: when a focused, read-only second opinion is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like codex_continue or codex_review, leaving some routing to inference.

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