Continue Codex Thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'read-only consultant mode' context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as behavior when the thread ID is invalid or what happens after sending the prompt. This is acceptable for a non-destructive continuation tool, but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler: the verb, resource, and mode are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple continuation tool.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: an agent can infer threadId and prompt from the schema and the continuation intent. It falls short of full completeness by not stating what response or result to expect, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 undocumented threadId and prompt parameters. It only implies threadId through 'existing thread' and prompt through 'continue,' but it does not explain where threadId comes from, what prompt should contain, or any format constraints beyond minLength.

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 action ('Continue'), a specific resource ('an existing Codex thread'), and the mode ('read-only consultant mode'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools codex_consult and codex_review, which imply starting or reviewing rather than continuing an existing thread.

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 word 'existing' implies this tool is for continuing a prior thread rather than starting a new consultation, but it never explicitly states when to use this versus codex_consult or codex_review. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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